Murder accused Fred van der Vyver’s legal team has told the Cape High Court it wants him to testify in his own defence.
The surprise move came on Tuesday afternoon after the state had already delivered its closing arguments, and Van der Vyver’s advocate Dup de Bruyn had begun his.
De Bruyn had closed the defence case without calling Van der Vyver, who is accused of brutally murdering his student girlfriend Inge Lotz in her Stellenbosch flat in 2005.
De Bruyn began his argument on Monday afternoon. When he resumed on Tuesday morning, he became involved in an extended exchange with Judge Deon van Zyl over Van der Vyver’s alibi that he was at work at Old Mutual at the time the killing took place.
Van Zyl said the court had no evidence on the alibi, only an explanation of plea submitted by Van der Vyver. This did not constitute evidence that could be cross-examined, and important testimony was missing in the case.
The person in the best position to say exactly what happened that day was Van der Vyver, and De Bruyn had chosen not to put him in the stand.
When De Bruyn submitted that a fellow employee had testified that Van der Vyver was there the whole day, Van Zyl said the witness, Mkhuseli Mbvomvu, had been ”confused” and was on first impression unreliable.
De Bruyn said the law required the state to produce evidence destructive of the alibi, and it had not done so. The alibi was supported by records of the security systems at Old Mutual and of Van der Vyver’s own computer and cellphone activities, and was not only reasonably possibly true, but had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
He asked for an adjournment after the morning tea break, and when the court resumed after lunch, he was joined by another advocate, senior counsel Henri Viljoen.
Viljoen told Van Zyl he was now also appearing for Van der Vyver, and asked for an opportunity to submit a substantive application for the reopening of the defence case to lead evidence from Van der Vyver.
Van Zyl said it was ”strange” to make such an application in the middle of argument, but it appeared that Van der Vyver should get an opportunity to put his side of the story.
He postponed the case to October 16, saying if the state did not oppose the application then, the court would in all likelihood allow it.
Viljoen said afterwards he had been approached ”quite recently” to become involved in the case.
De Bruyn declined to comment on the reason for the change of mind, saying the matter was sub judice. — Sapa