Did the North Gauteng High Court presiding Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial get it right in dismissing the defence's objection to the presence of advocate Magdalene Moonsamy, the watching brief attorney representing singer and socialite Kelly Khumalo?
Was he not myopic in quickly dismissing the objection raised by advocate Malesela Teffo, the defence counsel of the accused Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Ntanzi, Mthobisi Mncube, Mthokoziseni Maphisa and Sifiso Ntuli?
In dismissing the objection, Judge Maumela said watching briefs were a common thing in cases.
A criminal trial is about the vindication of community or public interest violated by the accused.
Yes Khumalo has a child with the late Meyiwa, but this was not a lawsuit determining liability for loss of support for the minor child.
Is Khumalo not related to two other State witnesses in the form of her mother and her sister?
Doesn't the watching brief attorney in a way tend to unfairly tip all those State witnesses linked to Khumalo?
By extension cannot the information gleaned from the watching brief attorney cascade to other State witnesses who were inside the house when Meyiwa was shot?
Doesn't the defence have a point, though technically?
It is strange though that it is a watching brief for a State witness who is lined up as one of the prosecution witnesses.
Before a State witness testifies he or she cannot sit in the courtroom and listen to the testimony of other witnesses called before him or her.
Lest it waters down their testimony and the defence can even put it to that State witness that he or she has sat inside the courtroom and heard other witnesses and is therefore adapting or fabricating or synchronizing his or her evidence to dovetail with that of the previous witnesses.
Fairness of the trial is an elastic concept that involves procedural and substantive aspects, and by implication all legal technicalities and niceties afforded under the constitutional concept of a right to fair trial in section 35(3) read with section 35(5) of the Constitution.
Or have we got it all wrong, and just building a mountain out of the molehill?