The High Court in Pretoria is set to consider arguments over the admissibility of a statement from Sifiso Gwabini Zungu in the ongoing Senzo Meyiwa murder trial. Gwabini, the defense's third witness, claims police assaulted him and forced him to sign the document without reading it. The state must prove the statement's authenticity before proceeding with questioning.
In the trial for the 2014 murder of Bafana Bafana captain Senzo Meyiwa, five men face charges in the Pretoria High Court. The case centers on the shooting at a home in Vosloorus, Gauteng's East Rand. Recent proceedings involve Sifiso "Gwabini" Zungu, who the defense called as its third witness.
It is alleged that Gwabini hosted a gathering at a Vosloorus hostel where all accused were present. He testified that police assaulted him and made him sign a statement he did not read. The state seeks to question him about the document's contents, but defense counsel Charles Mnisi objected, arguing the state must first verify its ownership.
Mnisi stated: "Objection, the state cannot say that statement belongs to the witness. The state must prove that statement belongs to this witness first before they can question him on it."
Advocate George Baloyi countered: "Well, the witness said the contents of the statement were transferred from one document to another. We don’t see an issue why we can’t question the witness about the statement."
The judge directed Baloyi to prove the statement's validity. Baloyi emphasized its relevance to cross-examination and proposed deferring the matter for heads of arguments on admissibility, with an agreed timetable. Mnisi insisted: "The state must provide proof."
Judge Ratha Mokgoathleng ruled that both sides should submit heads of arguments. He noted: "The state has an obligation to prove that statement to be because if a document which is signed under oath is being disputed, the state has and bears the owners to prove that the statement was made lawfully. Consequently, I think… the defence and the stage must arrange a date. going to how many days you need.?"
This dispute highlights ongoing tensions over evidence in the decade-old case, delaying cross-examination until resolved.