The Senzo Meyiwa murder case has been postponed to Monday as tensions boiled over alleged new evidence from Kelly Khumalo’s late neighbour.
Lawyers of the Meyiwa murder accused challenged the state’s attempt to rely on Thabang Makaleni’s oral statement. They say this evidence should have been introduced before the state closed its case.
Advocates Charles Mnisi and Sipho Ramosepele claimed that this was new evidence that should have been introduced through the right channels and not through the “back door”.
State prosecutor George Baloyi told the court that the oral statement was made to Warrant Officer Steenkamp on October 27 2014. Although Steenkamp did not give evidence in court, he said it was handed out in court.
Neighbour died after implicating suspects
Makeleni died in 2019 from what police revealed to be poisoning at the time.
Sunday World previously reported that he was staying not far from Kelly Khumalo’s home in Vosloorus during 2014. And he was poisoned a few months after he gave his evidence, which linked the five suspects currently charged with the murder of Meyiwa to the scene.
Baloyi claimed that advocate Sipho Ramosepele had introduced the oral statement on July 20 2023. This was during the cross-examination of Zandi Khumalo in the marathon case. He said it was brought up again on November 8 2024 when he cross-examined Brigadier Bongani Gininda.
Ramosepele admitted to cross-examining Khumalo. But it was specifically regarding the description of people who were inside the house. He denied touching any matter relating to Makaleni.
Court to decide on leverage
Mnisi told the court that the matter had no relevance to the current stage of proceedings.
He told the court that he had already raised this issue earlier in the week. That the state had legal options if it believed its case was incomplete. In this case, he said, the court would then decide if it grants the leverage.
He argued that he would not be allowed to stand and address the issues that the state is addressing.
“What is the purpose of this sitting, my Lord? Is it to introduce new evidence or to make a determination on whether or not accused number 4 has been able to bring the court an argument?
“Which in the mind of the court says that he should be discharged or the state, which in the mind of the court says the accused has not been able to discharge the honours in terms of Section 174? Those are the issues at this point in time,” said Mnisi.
