Pete Mihalik murder trial: State asks KZN accused, ‘Why would Kinnear lie in your favour’

Sizwe Biyela, Nkosinathi Khumalo and Vuyile Maliti were charged with five counts of murder, attempted murder, possession of an unlicensed firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition, for their alleged involvement in Mihalik’s murder. Picture: Ayanda Ndamane/African News Agency (ANA)

Sizwe Biyela, Nkosinathi Khumalo and Vuyile Maliti were charged with five counts of murder, attempted murder, possession of an unlicensed firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition, for their alleged involvement in Mihalik’s murder. Picture: Ayanda Ndamane/African News Agency (ANA)

Published Mar 16, 2023

Share

Cape Town - “Why would Kinnear lie in your favour?” was the question that had Nkosinathi Khumalo, one of the accused in the murder of lawyer Pete Mihalik, softening his tone in the Western Cape High Court.

Khumalo who testified he was a “gold trader” from KwaZulu-Natal was on Wednesday questioned about his claim that the interview (which resulted in a statement) between himself and the slain Anti-Gang Unit detective Charl Kinnear did not happen.

Sizwe Biyela, Khumalo and Vuyile Maliti are on trial, charged with five counts for allegedly killing Mihalik on October 30, 2018.

Khumalo yesterday concluded his testimony, in defence of his “not guilty” plea.

Maliti is expected to take the stand today.

State advocate Greg Wolmarans asked Khumalo as he concluded his cross-examination: “Why would Kinnear remove you from the heart of the location, why would he do that for you?”

Khumalo insisted: “That’s not how it happened”.

He said he had no knowledge of any statement he gave to Kinnear, when advocate Wolmarans confronted him with evidence given in court, of how he told Kinnear how the tragedy unfolded – “I am defeating (disputing) that because it was hard for me sign it.”

Wolmarans then put it to him that his claim of an alleged assault at the hands of police on three occasions and the subsequent signed statement, did not fit his version, but Khumalo said: “About my assault, I would humbly ask the State prosecutor not to dispute it, because he was not there.”

Wolmarans continued to explain to Khumalo, the court would consider the probabilities and improbabilities of his version in accordance with law, and he would argue it to be “highly improbable” that anybody other than Khumalo used his mouth to tell Kinnear what was written in the statement.

He put it to Khumalo that as an accused, he displayed all the traits of someone who was trying to minimise his role in the crime.

“You would say things that favour you rather than Kinnear, making it up for your benefit,” Wolmarans said.

“You signed with no fear because there was no reason for fear.”

Khumalo responded: “Kinnear came up with his own stories.”

He said Kinnear did not ask him, because if he did, Khumalo would have told him.

Speaking of the State’s allegations Khumalo said: “I am disputing that because I have never killed anyone, even back home in KZN.”

[email protected]