Pretoria - The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has no right to charge people the way it wants without providing the administrative reasoning behind such a decision.
The bold statement was made by advocate Zandile Mshololo, representing fifth accused Sifisokuhle Ntuli in the Senzo Meyiwa murder case. Mshololo was requesting postponement.
She halted her cross-examination of Sergeant Thabo Johannes Mosia in the Gauteng High court, Pretoria, yesterday and requested a postponement as a result of new information that had only just recently been disclosed to the defence.
The defence highlighted that the existence of two case dockets and separate directives from different prosecuting authorities on the same incident was something that could not be taken lightly. Mshololo said the first reason she had an issue continuing was as a result of one of the statements made by Mosia not being disclosed to the defence counsel before the start of the trial. In fact, she said the defence was surprised that the statement was only handed to her team yesterday morning.
As a result, Mshololo said she had requested docket 375, the second case docket in the case, from the State as the statement made references she wanted to cross-examine Mosia on. “I cannot be able to proceed with cross-examination on this document without reading the whole docket wherein this statement is contained.”
She said her request was relevant in the preparation of the accused’s defence as the exhibit referred to contained the same facts of a case that was before the court and of a case opened later on in 2019.
In this exhibit, Mshololo said the director of public prosecutions in the South Gauteng Division had decided that Longwe Twala, Kelly Khumalo, Gladness Khumalo, Zandile Khumalo, Tumelo Madlala, Mthokozisi Twala and Maggie Phiri be charged on two counts.
The first count was for murder in that on October 26, 2014, near Boksburg in the sub-district of Ekurhuleni, the six people acted as perpetrators or accomplices and unlawfully and intentionally killed Meyiwa by shooting him.
The second count was that of defeating the ends of justice in that on the same date, they unlawfully and with intent defeated and obstructed the course of justice by hatching a plan and informing the police that they were robbed at gunpoint by unknown persons.
In respect of Phiri, she was to be charged because she cleaned the crime scene before the arrival of the police, which resulted in obstructing the administration of justice.
“If there are two decisions, one taken by the South Gauteng director of public prosecutions and another taken by North Gauteng, to charge the accused before this court I need clarity on that from the National Prosecuting Authority before I can continue with any cross-examination.”
She added that the non-disclosure of the document to the fifth accused violated his right to be given further particulars and information that was in possession of the State in order to prepare his defence. In fact, Mshololo told the court this was the second violation of the accused’s rights as in the beginning she had to seek a postponement because of the late disclosure of dockets of certain witnesses, two weeks before the start of the trial.
“The person who has put this trial into shame is the State, who failed to disclose crucial information and decided to charge the accused after they have already charged other people.
“The NPA has no right to charge people the way they want because as much as they have the right to decide in terms of the Constitution, there is an administrative way of conducting such decisions in terms of the Constitution.”
She said until they had been furnished with the reasons they could not continue with the cross-examination of any witnesses. “A gross irregularity has taken place as the accused were made to plead before the court when we are not in possession of crucial information wherein there are other people charged in this case.”
Thabiso Thobane, instructing attorney for advocate Malesela Teffo, for accused number one to four, also informed the court they had no objections to Mshololo’s request.
In granting the postponement to June 13, Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela asked the parties to consider liaising with the court roll planner, the Office of the Chief Justice and the judge president to ensure the matter was not too delayed.
Pretoria News