Leila Samodien
Justice Writer
HONEYMOON murder accused Shrien Dewani’s defence has ripped into the credibility of crucial State witness Zola Tongo, saying that without him “there is no case”.
“Tongo is really the pillar on which the State’s case is built. If that pillar falls, the whole case collapses with it,” defence counsel Francois van Zyl SC told the Western Cape High Court yesterday.
Taxi driver Tongo is the man British businessman Dewani is alleged to have asked to arrange his wife’s killing. At the time, November 2010, the newlyweds had been on honeymoon in Cape Town. Dewani now faces five charges and is on trial for allegedly orchestrating the murder of his Swedish bride Anni in what is alleged to have been a staged hijacking.
But Dewani’s defence team has made a bid for his discharge and acquittal.
The court began hearing argument yesterday in an application by the defence in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This section allows the court to “return a verdict of not guilty” if, at the close of the case for the prosecution, it was of the opinion that there was “no evidence that the accused committed the offence”.
Tongo is serving an 18-year jail sentence for his role in Anni’s murder after striking a plea bargain with the State in December 2010.
Van Zyl said Tongo was the sole witness who had come to court to explain when the alleged conspiracy agreement – for Anni to be kidnapped, robbed and murdered – was entered into and what the terms of the agreement were.
“Tongo proved himself to be a completely unreliable witness,” said Van Zyl. “His testimony is not only highly improbable, it’s also riddled with contradictions on virtually every material aspect to such an extent that no reliance whatsoever can be placed thereon.”
Van Zyl also delved into what he contended were improbabilities in Tongo’s evidence as well as contradictions and differences between his statement to the police on November 26, 2010 – 13 days after the incident – and what he eventually testified in court.
Among the improbabilities was that on Tongo’s version, within half an hour of meeting Tongo, Dewani had asked him to arrange a hitman. It was also improbable that Dewani would have been prepared to shortchange the “dangerous” killers by R5 000.
Van Zyl argued that the contradictions were material. Among these was the stage at which the details of the murder were ironed out as well as who was to be killed. Tongo’s explanations for the contradictions were mostly that it was “a mistake”, but at other times that the officer taking down his statement had put things in the document that he had not said.
Tongo’s explanations “destroyed his credibility completely”.
“Clearly there was a conspiracy of some sort between (Monde) Mbolombo, Tongo, (Mziwamadoda) Qwabe and (Xolile) Mngeni. The question is: was the accused party to such an agreement and if so, what were the terms?”
Van Zyl contended that there was no credible evidence upon which a court “acting carefully” may convict Dewani. Later he said there was “something more to this case than what this court has heard”, suggesting that the truth may never emerge.
The prosecution is expected to present its argument today.