Joshlin Smith trial hears closing arguments

The trafficking and kidnapping case of missing six-year-old Joshlin Smith is expected to hear judgment this week after the state and defence present their closing arguments. 

State prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel argued that in a trafficking in persons case, the most important witness and/or source is the victim. However, what makes Joshlin’s case important is that the victim (Joshlin) does not have a voice to explain what occurred as she has not been found. 

Joshlin’s mother Racquel “Kelly” Smith, her boyfriend Jacquin “Boeta” Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn are accused of being behind the child's disappearance on February 19 2024. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

“Our victim was sold and that is our case, and that there was a planned agreement between the accused. One cannot put a value on a person or a person’s life. When you are dealing with a hit murder, the murderer is paid to commit the crime, but in trafficking in persons, we are placing a value on the person and that is why it is seen as such a terrible crime,” said Swanepoel. 

“A person is never supposed to be seen as a commodity. For a reasonable person it would sound bizarre to think a person is sold, more especially that a child can be sold.” 

She said Joshlin was exploited, and in terms of legal concepts there are three elements of trafficking in persons: 

• the conduct/act (what exactly was done);
• the means (how it was done); and
• the purpose of exploitation. 

However, she said when dealing with a child, only two elements apply: the conduct/act and the purpose.

“When it comes to the selling of a person they cannot tell you why this was done,  whether this was done for sexual exploitation, labour exploitation [or] child labour. 

“Our argument is in this instance is to say it was slavery or practices similar to slavery.”

The Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act states slavery reduces a person by any means to a state of submitting to the control of another person as if that person were the owner of that person. 

Swanepoel argued Joshlin was placed in a place of slavery or practices of slavery as she was taken away from her parents, who she was solely reliant on, and given to another person who would have ultimate control of her. 

She argued that the court previously heard from state witness Lourentia Lombaard’s evidence that Joshlin was wanted for her eyes and skin, therefore being an intended exploitation. 

“The intended exploitation in this matter might also have been for body parts as it is one of the different exploitations in the act. I would say the intended exploitation was for slavery or practices similar to slavery.”

The trial continues. 

TimesLIVE