To enjoy the full Mail & Guardian online experience: please upgrade your browser
01 Oct 2014 17:12
Angy Peter and her husband Isaac Mbadu (pictured), along with two other accused, have been found guilty of the premeditated murder of Rowan du Preez. (David Harrison, M&G)
They will remain in custody until November 24, unless defence lawyers present exceptional circumstances to the judge justifying the granting of bail.
Angy Peter, her husband Isaac Mbadu, Christopher Dina and Azola Dayimani were charged with assault with intention to do bodily harm and with the kidnapping and murder of Rowan du Preez. The judge acquitted them on the first count but found them guilty on the other two.
Judge Henney said Du Preez had been suspected of stealing a television at the home of Peter and Mbadu on August 11 2012 and they had confronted him.
After that confrontation, the judge said, Du Preez had been assaulted at their premises, though they had denied being party to the assault and had blamed it on the community.
He also said Du Preez might have been forced through the assault to give up the contact number of the police office, Andile Tshicila, who allegedly bought the stolen TV.
Evidence not convincingJudge Henney said none of the accused were impressive as witnesses and their evidence in court was not convincing.
Referring to Peter’s testimony, he said she had been argumentative with the state prosecutor, Phistus Pelesa, instead of answering questions clearly.
He said Peter did not dispute having been seen wearing a pink gown [by two state witnesses, Desiree Jack and Asavela Zici] at the scene where the deceased was assaulted.
No police conspiracyHe dismissed her version of events on August 11, that she walked away from her house which was full of people who were assaulting Du Preez.
Judge Henney ruled out the possibility of a conspiracy by the police in response to Peter’s role as an activist. He said she was not the only member of the SJC who had been involved in setting up the Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry into Policing and asked why she would have been the only one targeted.
He said Mbadu during his testimony had never mentioned having problems with the police and Dina and Dayimani were not enemies of the police.
Judge Henney said it was difficult to believe that the police, with all the resources at their disposal, would use an incompetent detective like Standford Muthian to fabricate a case.
Judge Henney said Mbadu was also not an impressive witness. Mbadu had not convinced the court why he would also be implicated in a conspiracy since he was not part of the SJC or involved in the Khayelitsha Commission.
On Dayimani, the third accused on the matter, whose taxi was used to transport Du Preez from where he was kidnapped to where he was assaulted, the judge said Dayimani’s testimony had contradicted that of a witness called to corroborate his alibi.
On the fourth accused, Dina, the judge said the evidence of Asavela Zici and that of Desiree Jack placed him at the kidnap scene. The accused had claimed that Zici had implicated him because she was bitter after he had broken up with her. However, Jack also claimed to have seen him at the scene.
Regarding the evidence of the state witnesses, the judge said, John Ndevu, the grandfather of the deceased had not tried to hide his grandson’s mischievous behaviour and criminal conduct, and his testimony had been limited to what he saw. Asavela Zici, the judge said, had given a clear account of what she saw. She had not been vague or evasive.
He described Desiree Jack’s testimony as concise and clear. He said all witnesses were dealing with a changing scene and sometimes details of what they saw were different.
But she and Ntsikelelo Dlabantu had corroborated each other on where the deceased was kidnapped by taxi.
Regarding the evidence of Dlabantu, Judge Henney said he had testified about seeing Mbadu at the creche where Du Preez was assaulted and his evidence was credible because he had substantiated what he saw.
Regarding Muthian, the judge said he had never shown any enthusiasm for the case and had only waited for instructions. He had not seized the taxi as evidence and had not investigated the alibi of Peter and Mbadu because he had not been given instructions to do so.
Defence counsel, William King said he was disappointed with the outcome. Peter and Mbadu would continue their legal battle, he said.
This article was first published on GroundUp.
Create Account | Lost Your Password?