- Five men are currently on trial for the murder of Senzo Meyiwa.
- The State’s third witness, Tumelo Madlala, was on the cusp of revealing whether he recognised any of the accused as the culprits.
- However, he was stopped as the defence teams strenuously objected to the evidence.
The defence teams in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial fought tooth and nail to stop State witness Tumelo Madlala from identifying any of the accused as being in the house on the evening the former Bafana Bafana and Orlando Pirates goalkeeper was shot.
Madlala, who was one of Meyiwa’s close friends, is testifying in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria as the State’s third witness.
Madlala was in the Vosloorus house when Meyiwa was shot and killed on 26 October 2014.
During his evidence in chief, Madlala said the first man he saw in the house was short with big eyes and short dreadlocks.
He testified that the man, who was wearing a scotch hat and caramel jacket, was armed with a gun.
Madlala said the second man he saw was tall and slender with a trimmed beard.
Madlala did not testify that he saw who shot Meyiwa, but rather that when a shot went off, he ran for cover in a bedroom.
He later told the court that after the shooting, he was asked to give a description of the short man holding a gun, which was later compiled into a identikit.
He also attended an identity parade but did not recognise any of the people in the lineup.
Towards the end of the day, Madlala was shown the identikits which he confirmed had resulted from his description to police.
These identikits formed part of the racial analysis report. Madlala said that following the arrest of the five accused before court, he was not asked to attend an identity parade.
State prosecutor, advocate George Baloyi, then asked whether Madlala could identify any of the accused in the court.
Advocate Zandile Mshololo, who represents the fifth accused, shot up to object, arguing that no basis had been made for the question.
Defence attorney TT Thobane also rose and said the State had confused the witnesses and should have used a follow up question.
Baloyi then reverted back to laying a basis for the question, asking what opportunities Madlala had to identify the accused before court.
Madlala reiterated that he only helped with the identity sketch and attended the first parade, years before the accused were arrested.
Baloyi, preempting the objections, told the court that he had prepared heads of argument for this evidence to be allowed.
Before being able to finish, Mshololo rose again and said she wanted to know who the person was that was identified in the identikit.
Madlala had previously testified that the identikit was for the first person he saw in the house, the short man with the dreadlocks. Baloyi asked Madlala again if he recognised any of the accused before court.
Madlala responded:
"I was even prepared to [identify the person] yesterday hence I requested that break yesterday. What annoyed me yesterday was to be in the same room as that person.”
Thobane objected again Before Madlala could continue, arguing that the question posed to the witness was vague.
“And, more in particular, identification inside the court is inadmissible and doesn’t have value ... because my clients who appear in this court, were not taken to an identity parade,” Thobane said.
Thobane added that a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment backed up his objection.
“If the State needs to take it further, it will require a trial within a trial.”
Baloyi said the State should be allowed to set out the basis on which the evidence should be accepted and again spoke of the heads of argument that he prepared.
Mshololo objected and said it was an ambush.
It was decided that Baloyi would furnish the defence with his heads of argument and that the issue would be argued on Thursday.