Cape Town - Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso on Tuesday morning peppered the State with questions about the holes in its case against British businessman Shrien Dewani.
“Do you think the accused would have gone along with this with all these loose arrangements,” she asked, referring to the fact that the main roleplayers Dewani allegedly hired did not have a clear murder plan.
It is alleged that Dewani and his wife, Anni Hindocha, came to Cape Town for their honeymoon on November 12, 2010, and that he approached airport shuttle driver Zola Tongo, who took them to the Cape Grace Hotel, to find him a hitman.
Tongo approached his friend, taxi driver Monde Mbolombo, who recommended Mziwamadoda Qwabe who, in turn, roped in Xolile Mngeni.
Of the 16 State witnesses called to testify, Tongo, Mbolombo and Qwabe were key.
However, their evidence was riddled with contradictions and discrepancies and it emerged that none of them were certain about crucial aspects of the alleged conspiracy.
This was one of the issues Judge Traverso raised when State advocate Adrian Mopp presented argument.
The State is opposing Dewani's application, in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, for his discharge and acquittal.
It is his argument that the State has failed to make out a case for him to meet and answer to.
But Mopp explained that no one knows what kind of pressures Dewani was under during his short stay in Cape Town.
Judge Traverso also asked why Tongo activated the child locks on the rear door of the vehicle when he knew Dewani would be ordered to get out of the car at a stage.
Puzzled about the alleged fee Dewani would have to pay the hitmen, she asked whether there was any evidence before the court as to how the money would get to the hitmen.
Mopp responded that it was agreed that the money would be left in the glove compartment of the vehicle, but conceded that there was no clear indication as to who would put the money there.
Mopp submitted that the plan would have been comical if a tragedy did not occur.
The argument continues.
IOL