Contradictions have emerged regarding the purported communication between the five accused individuals in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial.
This as the defence poked holes and highlighted discrepancies in Lieutenant Colonel Gideon Gouws’ testimony at the Pretoria High Court on Thursday.
The court heard this week that the second and fifth accused Bongani Ntanzi and Fisokuhle Ntuli were found in possession of cellphones while in detention. This led to the extraction of crucial data linking them to the other suspects.
Data linked all suspects to the case
In his testimony on Wednesday, Gouws revealed communication between all five men implicated in the crime. However, during cross-examination by defence advocate Charles Mnisi on Thursday, Gouws denied previous statements suggesting communication between all five accused in the case.
Mnisi pointed out discrepancies in Gouws’ testimony. He highlighted that Gouws had earlier stated that cellphone evidence connected all the accused. However, he retracted this claim later by stating that he found no link between accused one and three.
“I put it to you [that you] are changing your version now. So that it suits the information that you want this court to hear in your evidence in chief you never said that,” Mnisi said.
Countered Gouws: “I can’t change my version because I read exactly from the statement.”
The heated exchange between Gouws and Mnisi unfolded in court. This amidst claims that only the fifth accused, Fisokuhle Ntuli, had communicated with his co-accused. Thus contradicting Gouws’ initial assertion.
Technical glitch prevented expert’s previous testimony from being played
Mnisi called for Wednesday’s court recording to be played to resolve the debate. But technical issues prevented this from happening leading to a delay.
Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng intervened. He requested a pause in cross-examination until the equipment issue could be resolved.
“The chief administrator says the sound cannot be amplified from these gadgets. Another gadget will be brought tomorrow.”
Defence advocate Zithulele Nxumalo requested a brief adjournment. He alleged that the state had not provided necessary evidence for consultation with his client. State prosecutor George Baloyi countered. He stated that all defence lawyers had been furnished with the records.
Meanwhile, advocate Sipho Ramosepele, representing the second accused Bongani Ntanzi, challenged Gouws’ evidence regarding his client’s cellphone.
Gouws previously revealed that Ntanzi’s phone had a pattern security code preventing direct data extraction. However, information was obtained from his two SIM cards and memory card.
2nd defence challenges veracity of expert testimony about cellphone data
Gouws told the court that Ntanzi’s device, which had two SIM cards; MTN and Vodacom, showed communication records stored in an Excel sheet. Notably, a memory card extracted from Ntanzi’s phone contained a photo related to a newspaper article on the Meyiwa case. This indicated his awareness of the ongoing proceedings.
However, on Thursday Ramosepele asserted that Ntanzi’s phone had been in police custody since his arrest. This cast doubt on claims that Ntanzi downloaded an incriminating image of a firearm.
Gouws refrained from commenting on Ramosepele’s assertions. He stated that his conclusions were based on data extracted from the device.
Further discrepancies arose regarding the network service provider used by Ntanzi. Gouws claimed a switch from Vodacom to Cell C based on extracted data. Ntanzi’s attorney maintained that his client had always used Vodacom and MTN.
