A senior advocate was specially drafted on Wednesday to cross-examine a youth who accused his former legal representative of trying to bribe him not to testify in the Cape High Court murder trial of Dina Rodrigues.
The teenager claimed last week that his former counsel, Charles Simon, had offered him a R20 000 bribe to remain silent.
Jan Heunis SC started off by handing the court a sworn affidavit signed by the youth at Pollsmoor prison in August last year.
”I have, after careful consideration of all the facts, as explained by Simon, decided that I do not wish to testify, contrary to my mother’s wishes that I do so,” the youth stated in the affidavit.
”I am the one facing life imprisonment, not my mother, and I am of the opinion that she should respect my wishes.”
He later changed his mind, took the stand and implicated Rodrigues in the murder of six-month-old baby Jordan-Leigh Norton.
He stands accused of the murder with Rodrigues and four other co-accused.
He told the court Rodrigues offered them R10 000 to murder the infant.
Confronted about his change of mind, the youth replied: ”I have this affidavit in my room at Pollsmoor, but I also have another piece of paper saying I in fact want to testify because I have no other way out.”
Heunis asked him which the lie was — his evidence that he had long ago decided to testify, or the sworn affidavit saying he would not testify.
The youth replied: ”When Simon brought me the affidavit, he told me to sign it, and I did so because I wanted the bribe money.”
Several times, the youth insisted he did not know attorney Jacques Louw, who with counsel William King represented him before the appointment of his present counsel, Caryl Verrier.
Louw withdrew from the defence team because of his involvement as legal adviser to the Independent Newspaper group.
Heunis referred the teenager to a part of the affidavit in which he said: ”I was visited at Pollsmoor prison by my mother, several other people who I thought were news reporters and a certain Mr Louw and advocate King …”
Heunis asked: ”Why do you say you don’t know Louw? You mention him in your affidavit.”
The teenager replied that he had not read the document himself; it had been read to him.
Heunis responded: ”But you signed the affidavit, which signifies that you knew that Louw had been to see you. Why do that if you don’t know Louw? Are you saying the affidavit is a lie?”
The youth told the court it was.
Questioned further, he testified that he did not become agitated if caught out lying.
Heunis asked: ”Don’t you care if you are caught out lying?”
The youth replied: ”I don’t understand your point.”
Asked why he had not informed the court, prior to cross-examination, of the attempt to bribe him, the youth responded that he had wanted to, but several objections during the proceedings had deprived him of the opportunity.
The case continues on Thursday. — Sapa