Sgt Thabo Mosia concedes that he was directed as to what evidence to collect. (Photo by OJ Koloti/Gallo Images via Getty Images).
“Insults” flew between lawyers in court on Tuesday as defence advocate Dan Teffo used allegations of a contaminated crime scene in the Senzo Meyiwa murder to discredit the state’s case.
At the high court in Pretoria, Teffo asserted during his cross-examination of sergeant Thabo Mosia, the state’s first witness, who began his testimony on Monday by saying he was responsible for the “collection, packaging and processing of evidence, and the fast-tracking of evidence [to the] forensic science laboratory”, that the state had not taken care of the crime scene.
Teffo represents the first four accused in the case, namely, Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi, Mthobisi Ncube and Mthokoziseni Ziphozonke. The fifth accused, Fisokuhle Ntuli, is represented by advocate Zandile Mshololo.
They face charges of premeditated murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, possession of firearms without a licence and the possession of ammunition.
Teffo asked Mosia why brigadier Philani Ndlovu, the now-retired head of Gauteng’s detective services at the provincial headquarters, did not even know the address of singer Kelly Khumalo’s Vosloorus home, where Meyiwa was gunned down in October 2014, when the chief detective called Mosia to assign him to the murder scene.
This was after Mosia told the court that Ndlovu called him, without giving him an address, at about 11.45pm on 26 October 2014, the night Meyiwa was fatally shot, and he had to rely on officers from the Vosloorus police station to take him to the incident.
Mosia added that, when he arrived at the scene, he was met by Ndlovu, who told Mosia that Meyiwa was shot sometime after 8pm, and that Mosia recorded the time of shooting as 8pm in his notes.
Teffo said he found it “bizarre” that it took a forensic expert four hours to arrive at the scene of what the defence advocate called a “major” case.
Mosia responded: “Most people in the [Khumalo] house concentrated on saving the victim by taking him to hospital. That’s why I think the time was prolonged.”
This further confused Teffo, who reminded Mosia that he was under oath, could not lie in court, and then asked: “Who said that to you, that they wanted to save Senzo’s life?”
At that moment, advocate George Baloyi, the prosecutor, stood up to object to Teffo’s line of questioning, adding that the defence advocate’s questions were irrelevant, and that it was “unfair” for Teffo to remind an experienced officer like Mosia of the consequences of lying under oath.
But Teffo rebuked Baloyi for his objection, charging that the prosecutor would be “troubled by myself until he is blue in his face”.
“I am not going to be confined to how I question this witness,” Teffo charged.
Baloyi rose again to say he felt “insulted” by Teffo saying that the prosecutor would be troubled by him “until he is blue in the face”, but Teffo retorted that he used the phrase “as a figure of speech”.
Teffo continued probing Mosia about the crime scene, alleging that it was impossible for the house not to be contaminated four hours after the incident occured.
“I think the victims at the crime scene are the ones who delayed [reporting] this matter on time, due to the fact that they had to take the victim to the hospital,” Mosia responded.
The trial was due to continue after lunch on Tuesday.
[/membership]