Lourentia "Rens" Lombaard, the accused-turned-state-witness.
The fourth week of the trial of those accused of kidnapping and trafficking Joslin Smith has again laid bare the contradictions and confusion engulfing the state’s key witness — and the very foundations of the case.
On the stand again this week was Lourentia “Rens” Lombaard, the state’s star witness and a former co-accused, whose testimony has veered between assumptions and factual uncertainty.
For the second time during cross-examination, the mother of four collapsed in a dizzy spell and had to be assisted from the courtroom — prompting Judge Nathan Erasmus to pointedly observe that this now seemed to happen “when it came to crunch time”.
The high-stakes trial, being heard in the Western Cape high court sitting in Saldanha Bay, centres on Jacquen “Boeta” Appollis, Steveno van Rhyn, and Kelly Smith — Joslin’s mother — all of whom face charges related to the child’s disappearance. All three have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping and human trafficking.
Joslin vanished on Monday, 19 February 2024, the day after an alleged R20,000 cash exchange between her mother and a female sangoma. She has not been seen since.
In court, the pursuit of truth has often felt like grasping at smoke.
On Wednesday, the cross-examination of Lombaard reached a critical point.
The former drug user — who admitted to frequently smoking tik and mandrax with the accused — conceded under pressure that her claim of witnessing the cash exchange was, in fact, an assumption.
Standing 80 meters away at the time, Lombaard initially testified she had seen money change hands. But under questioning by defence attorney Rinesh Sivnarain, acting for Smith, she admitted she did not see cash.
“As I saw the lady give Kelly something, my own assumption was it was money,” she told the court.
“Did you just make an assumption?” Judge Erasmus interjected.
“I made an assumption,” she confirmed.
“What did you see?” the judge pressed.
“I saw the woman pass Kelly something.”
“Now I am confused,” Erasmus responded. “Because you just told us less than a minute ago that it looked like money, paper. It was only when Mr Sivnarain pointed out the distance, that you said it was an assumption.”
“It was just my assumption, yes.”
“Why did you tell me, just before that, that it looked like paper?”
“Sorry, my lord.”
“Do you have an answer?”
“No, my lord.”
Such exchanges have become routine. Lombaard’s frequent “assumptions” and shifting versions of events have drawn the judge’s ire — and cast a long shadow over the prosecution’s case.
In her March 2024 recorded confession statement, Lombaard said Appollis had accompanied Smith and Joslin to the sangoma’s car that Sunday.
But in her later Section 204 statement — given in October and tied to her indemnity from prosecution — she claimed only Smith and the child were present.
She attributes the inconsistencies to fear, drug use, nerves and mistrust of the officer who took the statement.
Yet even these excuses appeared tenuous. By her own account, she hadn’t used drugs for “two to three days” when she made the confession, and had never met the officer before.
Questioning by Erasmus revealed that the R1 000 she was allegedly promised by Smith for her silence also played a part in “not telling the whole truth”. She never received the money.
During re-examination, the lead state prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel attempted to restore confidence in the state witness.
“It was put to you that all that you are telling the court is just lies and you are falsely implicating the three accused. Is that true?”
“No,” Lombaard answered.
Swanepoel continued: “The Rens that used drugs in February 2024 and agreed to keep quiet for money, is that the same Rens that is sitting here today?”
“She is not the same person,” said Lombaard. “Because now I have had enough, I am going to be better …”
“If you were put in the same position now to do it for money, would you do it?” asked Swanepoel.
“No.”
Erasmus’s frustrations have not been limited to Lombaard.
His tone towards defence counsel has also signalled growing impatience with the trial’s meandering pace and often unfocused lines of questioning.
At one point, Erasmus had to lecture Sivnarain on the fundamentals of “cross-examination 101”.
It was into this atmosphere that Captain Wesley Lombard, a 22-year veteran of the Western Cape’s Organised Crime Unit and part of the anti-kidnapping task team, took the stand.
Testifying on Wednesday and Thursday, Lombard recalled his early interviews with Smith and Appollis on Sunday, 25 February — nearly a week after Joslin’s disappearance.
Neither was under arrest at the time, but Lombard said he still let them know of their constitutional rights “because in my opinion, everybody – including the two of them – were possible suspects”.
When Lombard introduced himself at the police station, Smith appeared irritated.
“She said something like she is sick of all the interviews with police, as it’s always the same thing over and over,” Lombard told the court.
Appollis, he said, was sometimes evasive. When asked about his relationship with Joslin, he deflected: “Ask Kelly.”
Smith, meanwhile, struck him as “edgy”.
Asked by Erasmus if this behaviour could be explained by tik use, Lombard demurred, saying that in his experience, drug reactions vary.
“From the way she was acting, she was frustrated, she just wanted the interview to finish.”
But what struck him most was her demeanour when speaking about her missing daughter.
“She said that Joslin was no longer in Saldanha Bay, so she must go on with her life, because she has two other children,” Lombard said. “I was shocked … I didn’t expect this from a mother.”
She had said this twice, Lombard told the court.
When he pressed her on how she knew Joslin was not in the area, she simply said, “My child is gone.”
She had no concrete answer when asked to elaborate.
“I said to her in so many words, how can a mother forget about a child in a few days? I further mentioned, ‘you said you are so heartbroken about the child, but you show no emotions’.”
Smith did not respond. Nor did she ask for any updates on the investigation.
“She said, in so many words, what is there for me to ask?” Lombard recounted.
“I said ‘there were people outside who had given up their time and resources to look for your child, but you don’t show any interest.’”
Smith had also told him what she had told other officers in the police station, said Lombard, that Joslin had “made me famous”.
Asked by Swanepoel about her demeanour when she made the comment, Lombard replied: “Her facial expression — she had a kind of smile. It looked to me, at that moment, that she enjoyed the [status of fame].”
Smith also repeated this statement “[about] two or three times,” said Lombard.
When he asked if he could take a further follow-up statement, Smith said there was no time, as she and Appollis had to get to a Spur restaurant to get something to eat.
“I couldn’t understand that a mother of a lost child wasn’t prepared to give up her time to help the police with further investigations,” said Lombard.
The trial was initially supposed to run until 28 March, but as Erasmus made clear, it will continue next week.