Kimberley - A Northern Cape High Court Judge is yet to rule on the admissibility of a confession made by murder accused Deon Mkhwanazi, as evidence in his ongoing murder trial.
Mkhwanazi stands accused of murdering local funeral undertaker Wilco Motlhatledi in Lerato Park last year.
Motlhatledi, who was the owner of the Galeshewe-based K Galalelo Funeral Parlours, was shot dead “execution-style” with a single shot between the eyes, allegedly by Mkhwanazi, who pretended to be a potential client.
The State alleges that Mkhwanazi lured Motlhatledi into the veld and shot him at point-blank range. He was killed in front of an employee, Oswald Riet, who accompanied him on the “fake” call-out. They picked up the alleged killer in Motlhatledi’s car. The murder was also witnessed by the employee’s four-year-old child.
The murder trial kicked off on Monday with Riet testifying about the incident.
The State then indicated that it wanted to hand in a “confession” made by Mkhwanazi on June 13 to a Barkly West magistrate, Cornelia Voster, but its admissibility as evidence was challenged by Mkhwanazi’s legal representative, Ferdi van Heerden, who said that the confession was obtained in an “unlawful and unconstitutional manner”.
Van Heerden alleges that his client was assaulted and influenced by police officials to make the statement, and that he was also promised to be made a section 204 witness (State witness) if he did so.
The admissibility of this confession has now become the subject of a “trial-within-a-trial”, which is expected to continue in the Northern Cape High Court on Wednesday.
Speculation has been rife among friends and family of Motlhatledi that the murder was an “organised hit” and, while no details of the said “confession” are allowed to be made known during court proceedings before Judge Johann Olivier has ruled on its admissibility, it is believed that its contents could also possibly implicate the persons alleged to have “ordered” the “hit”.
The investigating officer (IO), Warrant Officer Henk van der Merwe, on Tuesday took the witness stand and testified that while he did take a “Section 204” statement from Mkhwanazi, he did inform the accused that the application to the Director of Public Prosecutions (to be accepted as a State witness) had failed.
However, Van der Merwe testified that Mkhwanazi remained “adamant” that he wanted to “see a magistrate”, a request to which he obliged by organising an appointment with Voster, where he made the disputed “confession”.
Van Heerden on Tuesday repeatedly cross-examined Van der Merwe about the 204 statement and the chain of events leading up to the appointment with Voster, and stated that the IO had fundamentally produced three different versions to the court.
Van Heerden said that while, in a written statement, Van der Merwe said Mkhwanazi wanted to make a confession in front of a magistrate, he told the court during his testimony that he had “no idea” why the accused wanted to see a magistrate, and again later said that Mkhwanazi indicated that he wanted to repeat what he had said in the 204 statement.
Van Heerden added that at no time, immediately before making the 204 statement or before seeing Voster, was his client informed of his rights to remain silent or have a legal representative present and that his client was under the impression that a visit to a magistrate was the last step in being set free.
Van der Merwe responded by saying that Mkhwanazi had received a “14A form”, explaining all his rights, while in holding the cells. He also denied assaulting Mkhwanazi, saying that he was in Bloemfontein on the day of the alleged incident.
Mkhwanazi on Tuesday remained hostile towards members of the media, waving his fists at them and saying that he was going to kill them.
His case will continue on Wednesday.
Diamond Fields Advertiser