Defence in Meyiwa trial cries foul, says state has not disclosed cellphone evidence it plans to present

Outstanding cellphone data of two of the five men accused of the murder of Senzo Meyiwa led to a state witness's testimony being temporarily halted in the high court in Pretoria on Monday.

The lawyers for the accused objected to evidence being given by a police witness who was supposed to testify on the confiscation of the cellphones belonging to Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi and Sifisokuhle Nkani Ntuli.

They asked that the cellphone evidence of all witnesses be paused until they are furnished with section 205 evidence to enable them to get proper instructions from their clients for their defence.

Advocate Zandile Mshololo said her client would be prejudiced if she was unable to consult with him on the evidence the state intended to produce.

“If the state is going to use the section 205  during trial, it must be supplied to me so I can consult thoroughly with all these statements of different witnesses who will be testifying in relation to the cellphone that is attributed to accused 5,” she said.

Mshololo said she has been asking the state to disclose the section 205 cellphone evidence relating to the number alleged to have been used by Ntuli.

State prosecutor George Baloyi told the court the Vodacom expert who is supposed to provide section 205 evidence was still busy compiling her statement.

He said the data provided to her was in excess of 4,000 pages and she was busy narrowing it down to the relevant data for the accused.

Defence advocate Charles Mnisi accused the state of not being ready and conducting investigations mid-trial.

“It is apparent. It is beyond reproach that at the time at which the state decided to indict these people and frog-marched them to court for their first appearance the state was not yet ready to embark on that process. Cellphone records are not yet ready at this point, from 2020 to 2023. It's almost three years now,” he said. 

Mnisi said the state's conduct was prejudicing the accused.

“Each time we put a version to the witnesses that the state calls, they come up with something new. Then comes the next witness, we are also expected to put a different version from the first version ... based on the information that might have been available then. This prejudices the accused person's defence in their case because at the end of it all, we are going to argue about the credibility, the honesty and reliability of what these witnesses are saying,” said Mnisi.

He said the accused are not receiving a fair trial.

The state has called a senior forensic analyst who is now leading evidence.

TimesLIVE