The Joshlin Smith trafficking and kidnapping trial heard closing arguments in the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday.
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.
Prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel argued during closing arguments that “Joshlin was sold and delivered”.
The court previously heard that the state’s key witness Lourentia Lombaard’s credibility would be in dispute by the defence, as the witness admitted to lying on the stand. However, Swanepoel argued that just because a person told a lie once did not mean everything was a lie and when everything she had testified on was considered, there was some truth.
Lombaard was a former co-accused. However she became a section 204 witness, a person who is implicated in a crime but is allowed to testify against other accused people in exchange for indemnity from prosecution.
“We submit that [Lombaard’s] testimony in essence, despite the criticism, despite the little inconsistencies, is still reliable, trustworthy and can be relied on as a credible witness and credible evidence,” said Swanepoel.
Swanepoel further argued that after appearing in the Vredenberg magistrate’s court before the case went to the high court, Lombaard had time to think about everything that occurred and decided that she wanted to tell the truth.
“The most reliable and most important corroboration for Ms Lombaard’s testimony is in fact that of (another witness) Mr (Nico) Coetzee.”
Swanepoel said Coetzee specifically referred to R20,000 as Lombaard’s testimony heard that the latter overheard Smith telling Appollis’ ‘hier is die geld wat ek by die sangoma gekry het [here is the money that I got from the sangoma]’ and thereafter he asked how much, to which Kelly answered R20,000.
The court heard that the same amount was mentioned in Appollis’ and Van Rhyn’s statements.
The prosecutor further stated that the accused “cannot cry after making the decision not to testify” as they had a case to answer to and could have made an informed decision. However, they decided not to take the stand and it “was the wrong decision” as the court now the state’s version of events. .
Advocate Fanie Harmse, representing Appollis, said during his closing arguments that Lombaard’s evidence cannot be said to be untrue. However, the material contradictions, including her evidence on her confession, her section 204 statement and testimony held a “serious contradiction material”.
Harmse said Lombaard had testified that the discussion between Smith and Appollis occurred on February 18, but the court later heard that her confession stated the discussion happened on February 19.
Harmse argued Lombaard’s confession and her section 204-statement had discrepancies which were corrected by the state and by Lombaard herself during her evidence.
The trial continues on Wednesday.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.