Pretoria - The decision by the South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to prosecute singer Kelly Khumalo and other occupants in the house on the night Senzo Meyiwa was shot was not a decision but merely an opinion.
This opinion was said to have been written by a junior state advocate within the DPP's office and was reported to be without any merit.
"Clarity sought regarding purported correspondence from the DPP South Gauteng in the murder trial of Senzo Meyiwa as per case 636, dated June 10 2022 refers. This office did not make any decision or otherwise regarding the case docket."
"The alleged document does not have any status as such was an internal opinion from a junior state advocate which was without merit," read advocate Zandile Mshololo, the defence counsel for the fifth accused, Sifisokuhle Ntuli.
Last week, Mshololo halted her cross-examination of sergeant Thabo Johannes Mosia a forensic officer attached to the Springs Criminal record and Crime Scene management division, as a result of new information she alleged had only just recently been disclosed to the defence team.
Mshololo said through this the defence had learned of the existence of two case dockets, with separate directives from different prosecuting authorities on the same incident.
She indicated the reason she had an issue continuing with the cross-examination 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.
Mshololo informed the court she would moving forward be able to cross-examine the content of the exhibit as a result of the confirmation letter received from Deputy Director Andrew Chauke on the second docket but required time to consult and decide on which application to bring before the court.
State advocate George Baloyi said in so far as the existence of the second docket was concerned, the former counsel for the third accused, Mthobisi Mncube, had as early as January 25, requested further particulars and directed a letter to the state requesting contents of case docket 375.
Baloyi said as far as back as January this year, the defence counsel for the accused had been aware of the existence of the second docket.
He further indicated that the state had as of March 23, written a letter directed to investigating officer Lieutenant-Colonel Buthelezi requesting a copy of the docket so it can be disclosed to all the defence counsels.
Baloyi said although the officer was given the deadline of March 30, she allegedly came to the state's office but only gave the copy of the second docket to advocate Malesela Teffo the defence counsel for accused one to four.
He said the reason the state wanted to inform the court of this was due to reports that the second docket had "mysteriously surfaced" recently which was not the case.
Mshololo blasted assertions by the state that the docket was only given to Teffo, and insisted that the state could have sought an order to have such a docket delivered to it.
She insisted that the fifth accused’s constitutional rights for information about the second docket to be disclosed to the defence at the start of the trial had been violated.
"We are unable to conduct our defence further as a result of this late disclosure of the police docket. The state knew about this docket and neglected or decided not to disclose it to the fifth accused and therefore violated his constitutional rights which amount to a miscarriage of justice."
"June 8 was the first time I received the docket from the state and that counts as a non-disclosure. The state is not going to suffer, but the fifth accused’s right to a fair trial who has been violated as a result."
Mshololo said she still required time to request further particulars from the state, hold a pre-trial conference and deal with the admissions thereof.
Pretoria News