KEY POINTS
- Senzo Meyiwa murder trial.
- Police built their case on a chain of hearsay evidence.
- Defense lawyer says the statement holds no legal value.
The Pretoria High Court heard testimony on Tuesday on the alleged use of hearsay evidence to apprehend a man connected to the murder of Senzo Meyiwa.
Police linked suspect using triple hearsay in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial
The state claims that after a heist in Vosloorus in 2014, the man stood guard as others killed the Bafana Bafana captain.
The case’s investigating officer, Brigadier Bongani Gininda, went back to the witness stand so the defense attorney could continue cross-examining him.
After his lawyer’s recent death, he answered inquiries about the evidence against the first accused, Muzi Sibiya.
Gininda was asked to clarify how his client came to be a suspect in the case by attorney Charles Mnisi, who currently represents Sibiya.
Mnisi emphasized that during a family dispute in KwaNongoma, Absolom Zungu, Constable Sizwe Zungu’s father, made the initial accusations.
According to reports, Absolom told police that Sibiya and Bongani Ntanzi’s names were brought up during the altercation in relation to Meyiwa’s murder.
Absolom acknowledged, however, that he did not have such information directly from firsthand observation or knowledge, but rather from a man by the name of Mbhekiseni Ntuli.
A lengthy and ambiguous line of communication was created when it was discovered that Ntuli had also heard the report from another unidentified source.
This triple-layered hearsay was presented to the court, raising concerns over the reliability and admissibility of the evidence the police employed against the defendant.
According to Ewn news, Mnisi informed the court, “It is evident that this is a hearsay trial, and hearsay is not admissible, my lord.”
In addition to criticizing police for allegedly exploiting information transferred between multiple people to establish a murder case, he contended that the statement had no legal weight.
Court hears officer admit the murder case lacks verified evidence
Mnisi maintained that using unreliable third-party material unfairly accused his client of a major crime and jeopardized the integrity of the investigation.
As Mnisi stressed that such evidence cannot ethically or legally be used as the basis for a criminal accusation, the court listened intently.
Under cross-examination, Gininda acknowledged that the statement lacked direct verification and could not stand alone in court, despite her defense of the inquiry.
This week’s proceedings will continue as the defense aims to destroy the evidence that connected Sibiya and other people to Meyiwa’s demise.
