A lawyer representing eight members of Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s VIP protection squad has questioned why the cost of repairing scratches on the vehicle amounted to about R100 000.
This comes after the witness told the Randburg magistrate’s court on Tuesday that she was given a scratch repair quote of between R94 000 and R95 000.
The third witness’ testimony was, however, called into question by the defence attorney, advocate Mswazi Makhubele, during cross-examination on Wednesday.
Makhubele asked if the witness knew the difference between a dent and a scratch, and a dent compared to a crack.
He further probed the fact that in the statement that the witness wrote to the IPID (Independent Police Investigative Directorate), she did not mention a crack.
“Yes, I do know the difference,” she replied.
The witness said that according to the statement, it is a written dent, when in actuality they were scratches.
“It is not written in the statement, but I mentioned it.”
Makhubele questioned how the witness signed the statement when she noticed that some of the things she mentioned were omitted.
“When I signed it, I did not see the mistake. It was my error,” she responded.
Exaggerating the extent of the damage
He alleged that the quotation the witness referred to was an attempt to exaggerate the extent of the damage to the car.
“I have already alluded to the fact that the pictures before this court were not taken by me, and the quotation was not from me; it was for the damages that were on the vehicle.”
Makhubele said they compared the quotation to a PG Glass one and discovered that the damage could not exceed R5 000.
“I took my car to VW; I don’t know anything about a PG Glass quotation,” said the witness.
According to Makhubele, the accused acknowledged damaging the rear right window and front right door.
He said the reason was because when the driver was stopped, he was requested to open the vehicle; however, he refused and it had to be broken into.
“What I just heard breaks my heart because I do not understand how they could do such a thing. Who gave them the right to damage property? Anyone’s property, for that matter,” said the witness.
The defence informed the court that the accused denied causing any further damage to the vehicle because it was not necessary to do so.
Extremely intoxicated
“I took an oath before this court that I would testify to the truth, and what I said is what I saw with the car before and after the incident. I didn’t add anything.”
“In your version and the driver’s, you thought this was a hijacking; now he survived the hijacking and went to Pretoria. What would be so terrifying for him to go to the hospital after the incident?” asked Makhubele.
“I cannot testify on what happened or should have happened after the incident, but he told me he was terrified, and I believed him.”
Makhubele said the accused alleged that the driver was extremely intoxicated during the incident.
“And you said when you saw him, he couldn’t stand on his own. I put it to you that what you saw is consistent with what they saw — that he was heavily intoxicated.”
To which she replied: “I cannot testify on that. What I observed was the agony, the pain I could see on his face as he crouched down and held his head.”
The court adjourned, and the state is yet to bring two more witnesses to take the stand.
