Court still to decide how new Senzo Meyiwa murder witness will testify

One of the defence lawyers in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial says the court should not be swayed by a witness threatening to not testify if the court allows her testimony to be broadcast live.

The North Gauteng High Court in Tshwane on Wednesday continued to hear arguments on an application brought by the state on behalf of a witness protesting the live broadcasting of her testimony.

The witness, who was among the occupants in the Vosloorus house when Meyiwa was killed on October 26 2014, is yet to be sworn in.

Meyiwa was gunned down in what was described as a botched robbery in the presence of his then-girlfriend Kelly Khumalo, her mother Ntombi, sister Zandi, Zandi’s boyfriend Longwe Twala and Senzo’s friends Mthokozisi Thwala and Tumelo Madlala.

Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi, , Mthobisi Prince Mncube, Mthokoziseni Maphisa and Sifisokuhle Nkani Ntuli are standing trial for the murder of the footballer. They have been charged with premeditated murder, attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, possession of firearms without a licence and possession of ammunition. All have pleaded not guilty.

Bringing the application on Monday, prosecutor George Baloyi said the witness feared for her safety. Baloyi said the witness was in no circumstances prepared to give evidence if the proceedings were broadcast live.

Responding to her arguments, Zandile Mshololo, for Ntuli, said the court should not feel threatened. Mshololo said there were other mechanisms to compel a witness to testify.

“I have a solution and submit that this witness, who is the applicant, is a compellable witness. Therefore she cannot threaten this court. It is not her choice — she is compelled and obliged to testify. If she refuses, the mechanisms are in place in our law to force her to testify under oath because these people need to hear their case without any unnecessary delays,” she said.

Mshololo asked the court to consider the interests of the community at large. “If the audio recording is not granted then it means society, the public, will receive what is referred to as second-hand information from journalists who will be lucky to have a seat in this court to relay that information,” she said.

Further, Mshololo said, the constitutional rights of society to have access to the court, court information, live proceedings would be affected as society would have to rely on the inaccurate information from reporters.

The state ought to have brought a substantive application and that there were flaws in the way the state brought its application, she said. 

“The state has failed to place before this court the circumstances, the nature and the extent of the relief sought or of the objection raised. We don't know to what extent her constitutional right will be affected.”

Earlier, Baloyi had argued that a witness should be given a choice to testify in a normal way or in front of cameras.

Also opposing the application, media lawyer Dan Rosengarten said the state's application was based on “speculation and conjecture”.

Rosengarten questioned why the state did not obtain an affidavit from the witness to state why she was scared of live recordings. He indicated the witness had already made herself available to the media by participating in interviews and engaging on social media.

Rosengarten referred to a post by the new witness in which she spoke of a dream where she and her family decided not to testify in the presence of media and the court had granted her request.

In a social media post dated November 16 2022, the witness said: “After work, I had a late afternoon nap and I had a dream where we as a family had decided ukuthi [that] we don't want any media present in court when we testify, not even our voices should be heard angisho sinamamga [it isn't that we are liars] so we don't wanna waste any more of the people's time since [we are] guilty already in their eyes so we [would] rather testify to the court alone since they are the only ones who haven't found us guilty and the court said granted. My biggest fear is that my dreams always come true ... anyway asiyekenj amaphupho [Let's leave dreams].”

Rosengarten argued that the witness had brought the objections based on a dream. He said it was a publicity stunt.

“This witness has brought this objection based on a dream. She says nothing about fearing for her life. I am posed to ask whether this is merely a publicity stunt for someone who is very active in social media and whose image is all over social media,” he said.

Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela is expected to give a ruling on Thursday.

TimesLIVE

Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.