IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL ... · During July 2015 the family gathered to...
Transcript of IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL ... · During July 2015 the family gathered to...
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN
CASE NO: CC 47/17
REPORTABLE
In the matter between:
THE STATE
v
BULELWA NDUDULA Accused
JUDGMENT
STRETCH J:
Background
[1] Sakhekile Ndudula married his wife Bulelwa during 1996. They had three
children. Their marriage was not without its problems. According to Bulelwa,
Sakhekile would threaten to kill her. Bulelwa in turn had Sakhekile arrested on a
charge of rape and evicted him from the matrimonial home by way of a protection
order. During 2007 Sakhekile moved out and went to live with his parents. Not long
thereafter they were divorced.
2
[2] On 30 September 2011 tragedy struck. Their last-born child drowned in the
bathtub at home. She was six years old. Sakhekile returned to the matrimonial
home. His two surviving children needed a father. Sakhekile and Bulelwa decided to
give their marriage a second chance. They became reunited on 9 October 2011. The
following year, they exchanged vows for the second time.
[3] However, the relationship between Bulelwa and her in-laws remained strained.
During July 2015 the family gathered to celebrate the initiation of their oldest boy.
Thereafter Bulelwa no longer visited her mother-in-law.
[4] On the morning of 14 September 2016 Sakhekile was shot several times at
their matrimonial at [….], East London. He died that same morning.
[5] On 30 September 2016 Bulelwa was at the homestead of Sakhekile’s family.
The police arrived. They arrested her on charges of murdering her husband,
Sakhekile Ndudula on 14 September 2016, by shooting him with a 9mm parabellum
pistol in the sanctity of his own home.
[6] I will hereinafter refer to Sakhekile Ndudula as the deceased. I will refer to his
widow, Bulelwa Ndudula, as the accused. When he died, the deceased represented
the ANC as a member of the executive council for social development in the Komani
area. The accused is a primary school teacher.
The charges and the pleadings
[7] The accused was subsequently indicted and tried in the high court on charges
of murder and the unlawful possession of one semi-automatic firearm and
ammunition. It is alleged that the murder was “planned and premeditated”.
[8] Her trial commenced before me in East London on 21 May 2018. She was
represented by counsel throughout.
[9] The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges and confirmed the contents of
a manuscript plea explanation which was submitted by her counsel in terms of
section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“the Act”). She also made
certain formal admissions in terms of section 220 of the Act. This is her statement:
‘I, the undersigned
BULELWA VERONICA NDUDULA
States:
3
1.
I am an adult female person with Identity Number [….] and I am residing at 17 Weare
Road, Cambridge West, East London. I am an accused person in these proceedings.
2.
I am legally represented and all my rights including the right to silence were
explained to me and I have out of my own free will elected to make this statement.
3.
I intend to plead not guilty to the charges mentioned in the Charge Sheet.
4.
The basis of my defence to the charges is on the following basis:
a. I am aware that the on the 14th day of September 2016 at about 06:30 I was at
my aforesaid premises together with the deceased person in this matter and we
were both preparing to go to work.
b. I was in the kitchen, when I heard the deceased shouting and at the time I
thought he was shouting off some cats that occasionally intrude into our yard.
c. The deceased later thereafter came into the house to collect his helping of the
cereal and he went back into the bedroom.
d. A while later I heard a bang, which I cannot recall whether it was one bang or
more bangs.
e. I heard the deceased shouting that he had been shot and that I must hasten to
take him to hospital.
f. I may have waited for some few seconds in the kitchen as I had to satisfy myself
that the danger was out of the way and on coming out, I saw the deceased
crawling from the main bedroom into the garage and I went into the bathroom,
where I called out the name of the tenant, Noligwa Mkungeka to hastily come into
the main house.
g. Noligwa’s room is situated in an outbuilding and she has wardrobes that were
standing inside the room, which barring the wall, were the only obstacles that
separated her room from my bathroom as in essence her room is attached to my
bathroom.
h. It took some while for Noligwa to arrive and when she did, she was in the
company of another female person, which in my first reaction to her conduct,
thought to be a nurse as she felt the pulse of my husband and reported that there
4
was still some pulse and after that we decided to transport the deceased to
hospital ourselves.
i. The deceased was quite a heavy man and in loading him into the vehicle there
were four persons that were involved, Noligwa, her female friend, a security
guard from ADT security and I. I may dare say that I held the deceased on his
upper body and the others were holding at some other parts of his body.
j. I must state that the State is relying on the fact that there had been primer
residue that was detected on my hand and the jacket that I had on in the morning
of the incident, which I explained during bail application that I could have had that
transmitted from the deceased to me as there was no other way that I would have
acquired the same.
k. I do not know whether the State examined and tested the body of the deceased
and/or that of the other persons that assisted me in carrying the body of the
deceased into my vehicle for some traces of primer residue.
l. I am aware that the State had alleged during bail application that there was a
strong suspicion that I had used the vehicle belonging to the deceased to dispose
of the murder weapon and that is not so and I have been made aware that a
simple trip log request, which the police made to the tracking company on or
about September 2016 for the vehicle HJL 955 EC, which belonged to the
deceased.
m. I have not been served with the outcome of the subpoenad information, despite
many requests from the State about same.
n. I must mention that the deceased had a tendency of first lifting up the garage
door and roll the gate wide open on each day that he was preparing to go to work
and on the said day, the garage door was open on one side, exposing his vehicle
an Audi Q7 and it could have been easy for anyone wishing to access our home
to gain entry into the house via the garage and once inside the garage, the only
place that the intruder would get to first would be our main bedroom, where I last
saw the deceased in.
o. I knew that the deceased had many enemies, in his work as a member of
Regional Executive Committee of the ANC in the Komani Area and also some
other enemies, which he advised me about and also advised his employer, the
MEC for Social Development, Nancy Sihlwayi.
p. I did not think much about these threats in the life of the deceased, and;
q. I did not kill the deceased nor was I in possession of any fire arm and ammunition
as the State alleges.
5
5.
I admit the results of post mortem and the conclusions reached by the pathologist
who conducted the examination on the body of the deceased and that:
a. The deceased in this matter was Sakhekile Ndudula, a 51-year-old man.
b. The chief cause of his death was abdominal injuries (internal bleeding) due to
multiple gunshot wounds to the thoraco-abdominal wall.
c. The post-mortem report to be handed in to this Court as an exhibit and the
injuries and observations reflected therein, pertain to the deceased Sakhekile
Ndudula.
d. The deceased died as a result of the abovementioned injuries, which were
inflicted upon him in the morning of Wednesday, 14 September 2016.
e. The deceased sustained no further injuries from the time that he died in the
morning of 14 September 2016 until forensic pathologist, Dr. Solomzi
Solomon Zondi, performed a post-mortem examination on the body on 16
September 2016.
f. The photographs of the deceased taken at the post-mortem examination to
be handed in to this Court as an exhibit correctly reflect the injuries sustained
by the deceased, resulting in his death.
g. On 14 September 2016, Constable Luyanda Douw, stationed at the Local
Criminal Record Centre, East London, visited the scene and collected
gunshot residue test from me as well as my red coat (jacket).
h. The gunshot residue evidence collection kit with number 13S1M8506XX and
my red coat (jacket) that was placed inside a brown envelope were sealed in
an exhibit bag with seal number PW3000526325.
i. I admit that some of the test samples marked inter alia “M8506RIGHT”,
“E469RIGHT” and “E469LEFT” tested positive for characteristic gunshot
residue.
6.
The above mentioned admissions can be regarded as admissions in terms of
Section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
DATED AT EAST LONDON THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.
(signed)
B.V. NDUDULA
6
(Accused)’
[10] The prosecution did not make an opening address at the commencement of its
case. It merely advised the Court that it would be relying in the main on
circumstantial evidence, and sought an indulgence in advance for presenting
evidence which, on the face of it, may appear to be inconsequential.
[11] The outline of the State’s case was instead reflected in a brief summary of
substantial facts annexed to the indictment and the list of witnesses. It reads as
follows:
‘SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIAL FACTS
1. The accused and the deceased were married.
2. They once divorced but remarried after the death of their last born child.
3. Their marriage was however still characterised by marital problems.
4. Early in the morning, the accused picked a fight with the deceased when he
came out of the shower. It was only the two of them in the house.
5. The accused shot the deceased several times with a semi-automatic pistol in the
chest at close range.
6. The deceased was taken to St Dominics Hospital, where he died shortly after
being admitted.
7. The cause of the deceased’s death was abdominal injuries (internal bleeding)
due to multiple gunshot wounds to the thoraco-abdominal wall.
8. The accused got rid of the firearm in question. She was not the licensed owner
thereof.’
Evidence for the prosecution
[12] The deceased’s mother (Monica Ndudula) was the first witness called to the
stand. She lives at the deceased’s parental home at Esigubudweni in the Tsomo
area.
[13] On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 she heard that her son, the deceased,
had been shot. She heard this at about 8am. She arrived at the deceased’s marital
home somewhere between 11am and midday. By then the accused had already
returned from the hospital and was sitting quietly in the car.
7
[14] Later on that day Mrs Ndudula enquired from the accused about what had
happened. The accused reported to her that the deceased had been having his
breakfast cereal. She heard him chasing the cats. He came back inside. She heard
him opening the garage and the gate and returning to the bedroom. That was when
he was shot.
[15] She said that during the course of relating the shocking events to her, the
accused was just “her normal self as she is now”. When the accused’s brother and
her son died, the accused was emotional. But not this time. This time she was calm.
She said that she had expected the accused to have cried when she if she and the
accused were “in the same pain”.
[16] Mrs Ndudula confirmed that the first marriage between the accused and the
deceased was acrimonious. The accused had said that the deceased had
threatened to shoot her (the accused). The accused in turn had laid a rape charge
against the deceased and had him evicted from the matrimonial home. She
confessed that she did not have much hope that the second marriage between the
accused and the deceased would be any better than the first one. She had told the
deceased that she did not see a future for him with this type of wife, despite the fact
that the couple had apparently forgiven each other for past mistakes. Mrs Ndudula
conceded that there were no reports to her about marital problems after the couple
had exchanged vows for the second time.
[17] The second witness to be called by the prosecution was 34 year old Ayanda
Tuswa. Ayanda (who has an N3 in electrical engineering) claimed to have been
engaged in a brief week long affair with the accused during 2009.
[18] During March/April 2016 he and one Buntu Jwaai visited the accused’s home to
help her with her DSTV decoder. While he was standing on a chair fiddling with the
TV decoder above the wardrobe in the main bedroom, the accused complained that
she had been battling to reach him on the phone and said that she had a gun and
would shoot him (seemingly in a moment of jest). She pointed out a handgun in the
wardrobe just below the shelf where Ayanda was working, and told Buntu to hand it
to her. Ayanda instructed Buntu to remove the magazine which was loaded with
ammunition. Buntu did so and handed the arm to the accused. Ayanda took the
firearm from the accused, cocked it, and discovered that there was a bullet in the
chamber. Everyone was shocked, including the accused. Buntu replaced the
8
magazine and put the firearm back in the cupboard. The cupboard appeared to have
been one which the accused was sharing with the deceased.
[19] During cross-examination of this witness, it was denied on the accused’s behalf
that she had been engaged in an affair with Ayanda, despite having received a love
proposal from him. According to the accused, she had declined as she considered
him “immature”.
[20] With respect to the firearm it was admitted that the deceased’s licenced firearm
was indeed kept in the cupboard in question, but that the accused did not permit
Ayanda or Buntu to take it into their physical possession, nor did she threaten to
shoot Ayanda with it.
[21] It was also put to Ayanda, that some time before the deceased was killed,
Ayanda had taken photographs of the parties’ matrimonial home, depicting the
double garage with their two cars standing side by side, and had sent these to her.
Ayanda, whilst admitting knowledge of the double garage with an inter-leading door
to the main bedroom, said that he could not recall having taken these photos.1
There was also some confusion about money which Ayanda had apparently
borrowed from the accused but had not repaid. According to Ayanda he did repay
the debt by way of services rendered.
[22] Buntu Jwaai in his testimony corroborated Ayanda’s evidence in all material
respects.
[23] Having sketched this background, the prosecution moved on to the events
which transpired on the day when the deceased was killed. The first witness to testify
in this regard, was the tenant (Noligwa Mkungeka) to whom the accused referred in
her plea explanation.
[24] Noligwa testified that she took occupation as a tenant at 17 Weare Road in
January 2015.
[25] On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at about 6am she was still in bed when
she heard the sound of water running from the couple’s en-suite bathroom. She also
distinctly heard something which sounded like a “whistle”. Thereafter she heard
1 A photo which was produced after the witness had testified, reflects a whatsapp image (dated 2015/11/17 07:48) which appears to have been captured from the inside of a motor-vehicle parked in the street outside the walled premises of the parties’ matrimonial home. The gate to the property is open as well as the doors to the double garage, exposing the deceased’s Audi parked in the left hand garage as one faces the building (hereinafter referred to as the deceased’s garage), and the accused’s Mercedes Benz (which was used to transport the deceased to the hospital) on the right hand side closest to the inter-leading door to the main bedroom (hereinafter referred to as the accused’s garage).
9
shouting. She recognised the voices of the accused and the deceased. They were
arguing. This was not the first time for her to hear them engaged in an argument.
The accused sounded unhappy. Her voice was raised. She was accusing the
deceased of coming from girlfriends. The deceased shouted back at her. He said:
‘Is this what we are going to do? Have an argument about this issue about having
extra marital affairs on a daily basis?
[26] Thereafter it sounded as if the furniture was being moved around. The
accused said:
‘Are you hitting me now?’
The deceased said:
‘Are you also hitting back?’
This exchange was followed by loud noises which the witness described as
“bangs” following each other in quick succession. Then the deceased uttered
the following words:
‘Bulelwa, you are not even buying criminals to do this. I do not even know why I
married you, you witch! …. Where are the people? Noligwa, please call people!’
[27] This was followed by the rapid succession of clicking sounds like stiletto heels
walking around on the wooden floor. The clicking sounds continued for about five
minutes. At some stage the accused called out Noligwa’s name about four times. But
she did so quietly. Not in the high pitched tone which Noligwa had heard when they
were arguing. It was not the desperate cry of a person calling for help.
[28] Noligwa had, in the meantime, tried to transmit a whatsapp message to her
friend Vuyiseka Ngoqo (hereinafter referred to as “VJ”). When the message did not
go through, she phoned VJ, asking her to pop around if she had a chance, as there
was a fight going on in the main house. She went outside to wait for VJ. While she
10
was waiting she heard the sound of the deceased’s garage door, being opened or
closed. The deceased said:
‘Why are you closing the door? Take me to my car, so that you can take me to
hospital.’
[29] Not long after that VJ arrived. She parked her car in the street and entered via
the main gate which was already open. Together Noligwa and VJ approached the
house. The accused was standing on the steps leading to the inter-leading door
between the garage and the bedroom. She was wearing a pair of trousers and high-
heeled shoes. She was in the process of putting on a red coat. She said:
‘They have shot my husband.’
[30] That was when Noligwa saw the deceased. He was lying on his stomach on the
garage floor. He was bleeding. He had car keys in the one hand. A cellular phone in
the other. VJ asked the accused whether she had summonsed the police and an
ambulance. The accused replied that she had called “Dabs”. They did not know
whether Dabs was from the police or the ambulance services, so VJ tried to call the
emergency number 112 to summons assistance. VJ had by then taken the
deceased’s pulse. According to her, the deceased was still alive, so VJ suggested
that they transport him to the hospital themselves.2
[31] While the accused was inside the main house looking for her car keys, VJ and
Noligwa turned the deceased onto his back and moved him out of the way. The
accused came back without the car keys. They reminded her about the keys and she
went back inside, returned with the keys, started her car and reversed it out of the
garage. She did not appear to be panicking at all.
2 I digress to mention, that in response to my query as to why there was no sketch plan of the scene, the prosecutor produced an impressive looking lever arch file containing, he said, exhibits which he intended to “refer to during the trial”. I was advised that I would find a photo album of the scene at the very end of the file. There was no sketch plan. I received these documents on the understanding that they were being handed up provisionally, subject to the appropriate formal admissions or proof in the ordinary course. Noligwa was referred to a photo reflecting the deceased’s garage as closed and the accused’s as open. She said that when she approached the scene, the deceased’s garage was in the process of shutting.
11
[32] By then the security official from ADT (Vumani Majeke) had arrived. Majeke,
Noligwa and VJ picked the deceased up and placed him in the accused’s car.3
According to Noligwa, he was too heavy to be placed in the Audi Q7, which was not
a low slung vehicle like the accused’s sedan. They positioned the deceased in the
back seat. VJ suggested a pillow to support his head. The accused brought a pillow
from the house. Thereafter she closed her garage door, and she and VJ transported
the deceased to the hospital. VJ drove. The accused occupied the front passenger
seat. Noligwa later heard that the deceased had passed on at the hospital.
[33] Noligwa confessed to having deposed to no less than two affidavits on oath in
connection with this matter. Her first affidavit was taken at 2pm that same day. It
says the following (emphasis has been added):
‘On Wednesday 2016.09.14 at about 06:45 I was sleeping in my back room. I am a
tenant on the above address. While I was sleeping, I heard the owner, Mrs Bulelwa
Ndudula calling me. She was shouting Noligwa, Noligwa come. She was crying in
between. I also heard the husband (Sakhekile) talking but I could not hear what he
was saying.
2.
I then called my friend Vuyiseka who is my friend to come because I did want to go
alone to the front. I was thinking they have a quarrel but not sure. I did not get out of
my flat because I scared.
3.
I then checked through the window and I saw Vuyiseka’s car and that is when I get
out of my room. When I was approaching the garage I notice Bulelwa was panicking
and when I check next to their car (Mercedes Benz) which was inside the garage.
4.
Sakhekile (deceased) was kneeling next to the car facing down with his car keys and
cellphone on his right hand. I notice there is blood on Sakhekile’s waist. Bulelwa
informed us that someone shot her husband. Vuyiseka asked if Bulelwa phone police
and ambulance and Bulelwa said she phoned already.
3 Vumani Majeke confirmed that he, VJ and Noligwa carried the deceased to the accused’s car and placed him in the back seat.
12
5.
I am not sure who suggested that we must take him to hospital because the
emergency service will take their own time. We helped each other to lift him and put
him inside the car and that time ADT security has arrived that time. Vuyiseka drove to
hospital with the wife. I did not hear any noise except the time I was called by the
wife.’
[34] On the following day, indeed, shortly before midnight, Noligwa deposed to the
following version on oath (emphasis has been added):
‘2.
On Wednesday 2016-09-14 @ 05:45 I heard the shower in the main house. Shortly
thereafter I heard the shower open, this time I also heard a whistle. By that time I was
still in bed. On the same day at about 06:05 I heard Bulelwa (my landlady) shouting
saying: “Hey man you come back late because you are busy with your whores”. I
then heard the deceased (who was also my landlord), saying: “leave me alone are
we going to argue about that everytime.” I could clearly hear that there was an
argument between the deceased and his wife (Bulelwa). The argument continued
and I heard a sound like movement of the furniture. I heard the deceased asking:
“Oh, you fighting back now?”
3.
After a short pause I heard a bang. It was not a loud bang and I assumed they were
fighting and maybe pushing each other against the bed or headboard. Shortly
thereafter I heard a further few bangs (three to four) although I could not say exactly
how many bangs. I heard Sakhekile (deceased) saying: “You are not even buying
tsotsis you cruel witch, take me to the car to hospital. Where are the people. Noligwa
come.” I did not respond. I heard footsteps of someone wearing heel shoes, as if the
person was moving around and moving fast. I was still in my bed at the time. I then
heard Bulelwa also calling me, but in a very calm voice. She said Noligwa come. I
responded by saying: “Sisi”.
4.
I sent a watsapp message to my friend Vuyiseka (VJ). But she did not respond. I then
phoned VJ and asked her to come because the landlord and landlady were fighting. I
did not tell VJ I heard gunshots. I peeped through my bathroom door waiting to see
13
VJ approaching. I saw a white car and thought it was VJ so I went out and around the
house waiting on the corner of the main house. While still waiting for VJ I saw the
garage door on the far side from the entrance door (Q7 Audi)’s side closing. I heard
the deceased asking: “Why are you closing the door you evil witch how am I going to
get to hospital?” I did not see where the deceased was at the time but it sounded as
if he was in the garage. VJ then arrived.
5.
My friend Vuyiseka (VJ) parked her car outside the yard and walked into the yard as
the gate was already opened at that time. As soon as she came into the yard I also
walked closer to her and we both approached the garage in order to enter into the
house. The garage door closer to the entrance of the house was opened at the time.
Both vehicles were parked inside the garage. Bulelwa was standing in the bedroom
door holding onto her jacket she was wearing. My friend asked her if she was fine
and she did not respond but instead told us her husband had been shot. It is only
then that I saw the husband lying face down on the garage floor in a leopard crawl
position with his head facing the gate. He had his cellphone in one hand and the Audi
key in the other hand. I cannot say in which hand was he carrying the key and
cellphone. VJ asked her if she called the police and ambulance and she said she
called her aunt.
6.
A Black male, unknown to me from the security company (ADT) arrived. My friend VJ
suggested we take the deceased to hospital by car as the ambulance will take long.
Bulelwa went into the house to look for the Mercedes keys. She came out without the
keys. We asked her again to go back for the keys. She went back into the house the
second time to look for the keys. When she came out she went straight to the car to
reverse it out of the garage. By that time when she reversed the car we had already
turned him over so as to make way for the car to be taken out of the garage.
7.
We asked the security guard to assist us to pick him up the deceased, who was still
alive at the time as VJ (my friend) felt for a pulse by the time we turned him over. We
managed to put him inside the car and VJ drove them to the hospital. VJ asked me to
take her kids to school. The kids were left in her car outside the yard when she
arrived. I took them to school and went back home to prepare my child for school.
14
8.
After I dropped off my child I went to hospital. Whilst at the hospital we were phoned
to inform us that the police were waiting for us at the house. VJ and the brother of the
deceased drove Bulelwa’s car back to the house and I drove my car back to the
house but I never went into the house. VJ opened for the police but I never went into
the house and I left to report at work that something had happened at home and that
I will be coming to work late.’
[35] Noligwa explained that she had said in her first affidavit that she had not heard
what transpired inside the house because she did not want to get involved. The
following morning the police collected her at work. They interrogated her. They
instructed her to tell the truth because she had lied in her first affidavit. She had, in
the meanwhile, also had a conversation with VJ and realised that VJ had spoken the
truth in her own affidavit. It was then that she decided to come out with the truth.
After she had told the police the truth, the accused was also brought to the police
station. The police spent a very long time with the accused. She thought that they
were recording the accused’s statement. Thereafter she was called in and they
recorded her second affidavit in writing shortly before midnight. Thereafter the police
told her that they were going to destroy her first affidavit, because she had now
spoken the truth.
[36] During cross-examination she said that the police had not exactly used the
word “destroy”. They simply said that her first affidavit was no longer going to be
used. She initially said that she was not aware that VJ had spoken the truth to the
police. She was simply aware of the fact that VJ knew what the truth was, and had
assumed that VJ had told the police the truth. She made this assumption when VJ
returned from the hospital that very same morning.
[37] When Noligwa was taken through her first affidavit during cross-examination
she said that she had deliberately lied when she said the following:
a. That the accused was shouting when she called Noligwa;
b. That the accused was crying in between;
c. That she was unable to hear what the deceased was saying;
d. That she was not sure whether they were having a quarrel;
e. That she did not hear what they were talking about;
15
f. That the accused was panicking;
g. That she was not sure who suggested that they should take the deceased
to the hospital themselves;
h. That she never heard any noise coming from the main dwelling, apart from
the accused calling her.
[38] Noligwa was confronted with audio messages which VJ had posted on social
media shortly after the incident.4 During the course of relaying these messages, VJ
had shared the following information:
a. That when Noligwa telephoned her that morning, Noligwa told her that the
accused was crying.
b. Noligwa further told her that she thought that the accused was crying
because the deceased was assaulting her again.
c. That the accused, VJ and Noligwa were trying to load the deceased into
the car when the security official from ADT arrived and assisted them.
[39] When Noligwa was confronted with the fact that this information did not dovetail
with her version, she became evasive and argumentative. So for example, having
clearly stated in her evidence on oath that the accused was not crying, she
attempted to marry this evidence with her first affidavit and that which she had told
VJ on the phone, by saying that the accused must have been crying because she
heard the parties talking about hitting and retaliating. When she was pressed to
address the issue directly, she elected to hover between her two stories and said
that she could not recall whether the accused cried or not. As for the remainder of
the discrepancies between her version and VJ’s social media report, Noligwa
dismissed the latter by saying that VJ (upon whose truthfulness she had allegedly
placed much reliance earlier on in her evidence) had to explain herself. Thereafter,
she somewhat reluctantly explained that when she had phoned VJ to summons her
to the scene, she not only told VJ that the parties were fighting, but also said that it
was serious this time, because during the course of the fight, the deceased had
mentioned that she (Noligwa) should call people. Thereafter she fluctuated once
4 I will deal with these messages in full when I traverse VJ’s evidence.
16
again in her evidence, stating that she could not recall what she had told VJ on the
phone, except that there was a fight. She also added that she could not recall having
told the police in her first affidavit that the accused was crying.5
[40] Despite having categorically excluded the accused as one of the persons who
carried the deceased in her evidence in chief, she became far less sure of herself as
the cross-examination continued and eventually stated that according to her
“recollection” the accused did not assist.
[41] Noligwa, during cross-examination, adopted a rather curious and disturbing
habit of describing her version as “my truth”, VJ’s version as “her truth” and the
accused’s version as “her truth, because it will be coming out of her mouth”. It was
necessary for this Court, on more than one occasion, to encourage her to answer
questions directly, and to explain to her the difficulties associated with degrees of
truth. Finally, when she was asked whether she had spoken the truth when she
testified on oath, her response was that she spoke the truth “a lot”.
[42] Vuyiseka Ngoqo (“VJ”) confirmed in evidence that she had received a phone
call from Noligwa on the morning of Wednesday, 14 September 2016. With
reference to her landlord and –lady, Noligwa had said on the phone:
‘Get here quickly. Bhuti and Sissie are fighting.’
[43] VJ testified that she left for the crime scene at 6:55am. Her evidence about
what transpired thereafter corroborates that of Noligwa in most material respects. In
a nutshell, she said that upon her arrival, the gate and both garage doors were open.
Noligwa was standing outside. The accused and the deceased were in the garage.
The deceased was lying on the floor. He had a cellular phone in his left hand and car
keys in his right hand. She called out to the deceased after the accused had told her
that the deceased had been shot. He did not respond. She felt his pulse and
confirmed that he was still alive. She did not see any blood. She asked the accused
whether she had called an ambulance and the police. The accused replied that she
had called one Dabs. VJ tried to phone Netcare but failed. She was not in a good
state. She went into the street instead and shouted for help. There was no response.
She told the accused to reverse her car out of the garage. VJ and Noligwa turned the
5 This, despite the fact that the witness had stressed, shortly before, that she was deliberately lying when she told the police in her first affidavit that the accused had indeed been crying.
17
deceased over. They realised he was heavy. VJ went back into the street. By then
she was screaming and crying. The security official from ADT arrived. Because the
deceased was heavy they wanted to carry him on a plank but could not find one.
Eventually she, Noligwa and the security official managed to lift the deceased and
place him in the accused’s car. The accused was in the house most of the time. She
eventually came out wearing a jacket and carrying a bag. VJ suggested to the
accused that she should either sit with the deceased in the back seat or bring a
pillow to support him. The accused brought a pillow which VJ placed underneath the
deceased. She and the accused took the deceased to St Dominics Hospital. VJ
drove.
[44] On the way the accused told her what had happened. She said that she was in
the kitchen preparing lunch and eating her breakfast cereal. She heard the deceased
walking up and down in the house. She heard him saying:
‘Voetsek! Voetsek!’
His voice was coming from the direction of the main bedroom/garage. She thought
he was chasing stray cats. She heard something falling. It sounded like the cereal
bowl which he was carrying. She heard something which sounded like a shot being
fired. It happened twice. She hid herself in the kitchen.
[45] While the accused was explaining to VJ what had happened, the accused’s
phone rang. VJ took the call. She told the female person who was on the other end
of the line (“Dabs”) that they were on their way to the hospital with the deceased. VJ
said that they also chatted about where they hailed from. It transpired that the
accused had schooled with VJ’s sisters. The accused made small talk as if the
deceased was not there. She never even touched him.
[46] When they arrived at the hospital the nursing staff carried the deceased inside.
The accused remained seated in the car. Later she accompanied the accused into
the hospital in order to see to the formalities of the deceased’s admission. Dabs
arrived. A nurse approached them. She told them that the deceased had passed on.
According to VJ she herself expressed far more grief and emotion than anyone else
upon having been told the sad news. Indeed she cried out loudly. Dabs was also
crying. The accused said:
18
‘What did you say? What did you say nurse?’
[47] The nurses placed the accused on a bed and told her to cry if she wanted. Sgt
Petzer arrived. He obtained affidavits from VJ and the accused. He did not question
VJ in detail. Despite not having been questioned in detail by Petzer, VJ volunteered
the following information in the affidavit she deposed to directly after the deceased
had died:
a. That Noligwa had telephoned her that morning, saying that the accused
was crying.
b. That upon her arrival at the scene, she saw a bullet hole in the house.
c. She asked the accused about a firearm. The accused said she did not
know about any firearms.
[48] VJ said that when they returned to the scene there were many people. Some
spoke about threats. The accused had also touched on the subject of threats which
the deceased had received when they were on the way to the hospital.
[49] At the instance of the police, VJ deposed to a second affidavit three days later.
Therein she mentioned the following:
a. That when Noligwa telephoned her that morning, she said that the
deceased was in the process of assaulting the accused. This was at
06.55am.
b. She arrived at the scene at 06.59am.
c. Only the accused’s garage door was open.
d. She, the accused and Noligwa tried to place the deceased in the car but
he was too heavy. When the ADT security guard arrived, he assisted
them.
[50] VJ was referred to the recording of what she had said to her chat group on
social media that very same day. She said that she did not know why she had said
some of these things.6
6 For the best part of her evidence VJ was emotional. She was also adamant that she did not want to be led by the prosecutor, but preferred to tell her story without interruption, almost as if by rote. When she described
19
[51] A recording of what VJ had said to her chat group, was translated by the
official court interpreter and reads as follows:7
First clip:
I am a witness. My friend has been shot, but the person who shot is still unknown.
Other members of the ANC also got there and said he had been receiving threats.
Second clip:
I am in custody. What happened here is a child that I was schooling with, called
Nolikwa, she is a tenant in Cambridge with people who originate from the same
village as I. Now what happens is the homeboy used to hit the lady. She calls me and
tells me to go over because she thinks the lady is crying because she’s been
assaulted by the gentleman. I rushed there. On arrival the gentleman is lying next to
the motor-vehicle. He’s been shot on numerous occasions. Indeed I got there. We
loaded him in the vehicle and took him to St Dominics. He passed away before I
turned facing St Dominics. I’ve been questioned a lot and have been told not to
leave.
Third clip:
Wait people – so many questions and I’m still on my way to work. I am going to clock
in. I was telephoned by a friend. On arrival the gentleman was lying on the floor and
he was shot. My heroics and bravery that I hate a lot – trying to load him into a
vehicle. Trying to be of assistance – loading him in their vehicle. It was the wife, a girl
and me – the three of us – then ADT arrived. He helped us carry him and put him in.
There was still a pulse. We took him to St Dominics – when I turned, that’s when it
happened. He was carried by me, the wife, my friend and the ADT only. All of that
how the pillow was placed under the deceased for support, she began to weep audibly and hysterically and requested a comfort break. When she heard the recording of her own voice on social media however, she smiled. Ex facie this recording, she sounded excited when she relayed the events to her chat group. I did not detect the same emotion in her recorded voice, as that which I observed and heard when she testified. During cross examination she became hostile and defensive, from the onset challenging her examiner and saying that she thought she had already explained herself clearly. 7 During the trial, I was furnished with what purports to be a transcript of what had thus far been said in court. It is not. It also reflects words which do not exist in any language which I am aware of. I kept notes of what was said when the recording of VJ’s chat was played and translated by the official court interpreter from isiXhosa into English. From time to time, my notes differ from the aforesaid transcript. Where this has happened, this judgment will reflect what is contained in my notes, and not the gibberish and sometimes hugely material deviations reflected in the transcript. By way of example, VJ’s words to the chat group were interpreted as follows: “ … the person who shot is still unknown”. The transcript however reads: “the person who has been shot is still unknown”!
20
happened inside the house – not in the garage, or the gate or wherever. The wife
was at the house because he only lived with her.
[52] During cross-examination VJ denied that she had told Petzer in her first
affidavit that Noligwa had told her that the accused was crying. She maintained that
her second affidavit accurately reflected what she had told the police. However,
when it was put to her that her second affidavit reflected that the accused had helped
to carry the deceased, she attempted to distance herself from the statement saying
that the entire statement was not read back to her. She said that she had already
spent a lot of time with the police, it was late and that she was in a hurry to collect
her children from school (despite the fact that her statement was taken on a
Saturday). She admitted however that she had also told her chat group that the
accused had helped to carry the deceased.
[53] She said that she knew that the deceased had been shot in the house because
Warrant Officer Petzer had permitted her access to the house upon her return from
the hospital. It happened like this: She, VJ, was the one who had driven the
accused’s car back from the hospital to the crime scene. The accused had given her
the car keys and the house keys, as she was staying behind at the hospital. When
she arrived, Petzer was waiting outside the closed gate. Otherwise, the crime scene
was deserted.8 Petzer told her to walk exactly as he instructed her. She mentioned
to him that there were cameras in the yard. She followed him. The garage was
open.9 Petzer entered the house and invited her to follow him. He told her to stand in
the centre of the main bedroom. Although she had not been in the house before, she
noticed that the corner of the bed had been moved. The closet was open, exposing a
CCTV screen. She saw bullets lying around, but no cartridges. Petzer pointed out
bullet holes in the ceiling. Thereafter, he said that she was free to go.
[54] Detective Warrant Officer Petzer had 24 years’ experience as a detective at
the time that he testified. He said that on 14 September 2016 he was working at
Cambridge police station in East London when he received information that there
had been at shooting at 17 Weare Road. He attended the scene. Everything was
8 Earlier in her evidence VJ said that when she returned, there were a lot of people at the crime scene. She also said this to the members of her chat group. 9 According to Noligwa’s testimony on oath, both garages were closed before the deceased was taken to the hospital.
21
locked. He went to St Dominics Hospital where he obtained affidavits from the
accused and VJ. This was between 7 and 8am.
[55] The accused told him that she had been at home with the deceased. She said
she had just made breakfast and was in the kitchen. The deceased went outside and
came back in. He told her that he was going out again to open the gate. She heard
gunshots from outside. She hid behind the kitchen counter. When it was quiet she
called for the deceased. There was no response. She went to the door which links
the main bedroom to the garage. The deceased was lying on the garage floor.
[56] After having obtained these statements he returned to the scene. He was in a
hurry. It took him about ten minutes to drive from the hospital to the scene. On
average, and driving normally, the trip would take no longer than 15 to 20 minutes.
He had to wait for the accused to open up as the scene was still under lock and key.
She arrived 30 to 45 minutes later. There were other people with her, including VJ.
The accused handed the remote control for the garage door to VJ, who handed it
over to him. He opened the garage door with the remote control which the accused
had provided. He stepped onto the scene alone. No one accompanied him.
[57] He saw a 9mm calibre spent cartridge on the carpet in the garage near the door
leading to the main bedroom.10 This door was ajar. He saw other items on the stairs
between the garage and the main bedroom such as a button (it looked like a shirt
button) and a needle. He proceeded through the inter-leading door between the
garage and the main bedroom. He saw “drag marks” in the main bedroom. There
was an open empty jewellery box lying on the main bedroom floor. The bedroom was
10 The prosecution’s photograph album contained several photographs of the scene and the autopsy. The photos of the scene were frequently presented in isolation and in a vacuum, making it extremely difficult to determine where certain rooms and items were in relation to others. This is generally why sketch plans accompany photographs, an apparent luxury which was conspicuous in its absence throughout the trial and which was only introduced shortly before the prosecution closed its case, despite the fact that it had apparently been compiled a week after the deceased was shot. In the premises, and at the Court’s instance, Petzer made his best endeavours to describe how the pieces of the puzzle fit together from memory, which he did in the following terms: There is a door going into the main bedroom from the garage. The main bedroom has an en-suite bathroom. There is a second door leading from the main bedroom into the passage. If one walks from the main bedroom down the passage, the second bedroom is on the right, followed by the lounge. The third bedroom is on the left, followed by the guest bathroom and thereafter the open plan kitchen and the lounge. The distance from the door leading to the garage to the point where the passage meets up with the open plan kitchen is about seven metres. The house has a front door which leads out from the lounge and a back door which leads out from the kitchen. Both these doors were locked when he attended the scene. I might add that the belatedly introduced sketch plan perfectly corroborates Petzer’s description of the crime scene. The plan also reflects that Noligwa’s room shares a common wall with both the garage and the en-suite bathroom to the main bedroom.
22
clean. The bed had been made. He saw a piece of schrapnel on the main bedroom
floor. There was a bullet hole in one of the cupboards as well as in the trim of the
ceiling. He saw what appeared to be schrapnel from a 9mm projectile on the
passage floor between the second and third bedrooms. In the second bedroom he
saw two spent cartridges and another button, which he thought was similar to the
previous one. He found a 9mm calibre live round on the carpet in the second
bedroom.11 There were two ricochet marks on the second bedroom floor. There was
blood splattered in the passage at the entrance to the third bedroom.
[58] It occurred to him that the account which the accused had given him did not
correspond with the crime scene in the following respect: if shots had been fired
outside the house, the projectiles would be lying outside or in the garage, but not
inside the house. Apart from that, there were no other issues of concern to him with
respect to the accused’s version.
[59] By this time he had already contacted the criminal record centre and the
forensics department. He cordoned the scene off and took photos.
[60] It looked to him as if there had been blood on the floor which someone had
mopped up, but he was unable to say how long ago the cleaning could have taken
place. According to Petzer the forensics people showed him, with the use of luminal
spray and fluorescent lights, that a substance had been mopped up or cleaned up in
the passage. They searched the entire house, all the cupboards, the garage, the
garden and the garbage bins looking for a mop or similar utensil with blood on it.
There was nothing. Indeed they could find no exhibits at all.
[61] He was adamant that he was alone when he first entered the house. No
members of the public were ever allowed on the scene.12 The accused and other
civilians were sitting outside in a vehicle in the street.
[62] He asked the accused whether she was prepared to submit to primer residue
tests. She agreed. The tests were performed by Cst. Douw (assisted by Captain May
and Colonel Tyafu) at about 11am that same day. They were done privately as there
were a lot of people standing outside. His intention was to exclude her as a suspect
11 During cross examination Petzer confirmed that the ammunition which he saw lying on the floors of the various rooms was clearly visible to the naked eye. He said that anyone who walked into these rooms would have spotted these items. 12 This evidence is in stark contrast to that of VJ, who said that it was she who escorted Petzer to unlock the premises (as the accused was still at the hospital) and that she went with him into the house and that she herself made certain observations.
23
because on her version, she and the deceased were the only two people in the
house at the time of the shooting. He remarked that the accused was unusually quiet
both at the hospital and at the crime scene.
[63] At about 11.40am the criminal record team arrived from the provincial office.
Petzer stood outside the residence and explained to their team leader (Warrant
Officer Yelani) what he had found and observed inside the house. He was able to do
this with reference to his pocket book in which he had kept detailed notes. The team
then took over the scene. They left the scene at 18.10pm and returned at about 7am
the next day as the criminal record team had not finished “processing the house”.
[64] Significantly, Captain Kamteni from the Port Elizabeth forensic science
laboratory also arrived on the 15th and processed and reconstructed the scene.13
Petzer stayed until the forensics people had finished their investigation. According to
him the scene was “processed” and the photos in the State’s album were taken in his
absence. He said that he did not walk through the scene with the photographer
(Warrant Officer Yelani). He also did not point out anything to him. He simply told
those who processed the scene what he had found. Indeed, when Petzer was taken
through the photo album (without reference to the key thereto) he was unable to
comment on the significance of certain items which had been labelled and could not
identify what they were.
[65] Petzer confirmed that the doctor who had performed the autopsy on the
deceased’s body had handed him a 9mm projectile and the deceased’s clothes. He
handed these items in and they were recorded in the SAP13 (commonly known as
the exhibit register).
[66] During cross examination Petzer confirmed that what he had recorded in VJ’s
first affidavit was indeed what she had related to him. He explained that before he
took the accused’s affidavit, he was told by a nurse that the accused had been
sedated.
[67] Sindiswa Gede also known as (“Dabs”) is the deceased’s paternal aunt. She
testified that her phone rang at 06.56am on the morning of Wednesday, 14
September 2016. It was the accused. She said:
13 Captain Kamteni is cited in the “list of state witnesses” as “Captain Lulamile Kamteni (LAB 373917/16)”. More will be said about him later on in this judgment.
24
‘Sisi! Sisi! Sakhekile has been shot at the house! Please summons an ambulance.’
[68] Dabs, who was employed as the district manager for health services at the
Amatole health department, duly summonsed an ambulance, phoned the police and
informed family members. Thereafter she drove to the crime scene.
[69] She arrived at about 07.17am. Everything was quiet. She dialled the accused’s
phone. VJ answered and said they were on their way to St Dominics.
[70] She rushed to the hospital and asked the accused what had happened. It
seemed as if the accused was in shock. The accused explained that that morning
she was in the kitchen when she heard a sound like a glass bowl falling on the
ceramic tiles. She called out to the deceased. She heard the sound again. She hid in
the kitchen. When it was quiet she went out. She saw the deceased crawling
towards the door leading from the house into the garage. She called the tenant.
[71] While the accused was relating to her what had happened, they were informed
that the deceased had died. Dabs said she cried hysterically. The accused
exclaimed:
‘My husband!’
[72] Dabs exchanged her flat shoes for the accused’s high heeled shoes because
the accused could not stand. She was collapsing.
[73] Viwe Dinga was called by the prosecution. She is a headmistress employed
with the Department of Education. She is also the deceased’s cousin. She and the
accused were teaching together when the accused married the deceased. At some
point the police confiscated her mobile phone and transcribed various whatsapp
chats between Viwe and the accused. The obvious upshot of these messages is that
the accused had in confidence discussed her marriage problems with Viwe.
According to Viwe, the accused kept on complaining that the deceased had deserted
the matrimonial home. Viwe in turn, comforted her and attempted to render spiritual
counselling to the accused. During the course of these conversations the accused
told her that the marriage was on the rocks and explained how she was preparing
her home so that her children had a place to stay when she died.
[74] So for example, on 8 August 2016 the accused, in messaging Viwe about her
marital problems with the deceased had said:
25
‘I’ve given up completely on marriage. … I’ve told myself that I’m out of marriage. He
will never see me again at his home unless a child of mine dies. Now I’m fixing my
house. Should I die my children will have a place.’…
‘He has been in Queenstown since Monday of the special votes. I have had enough.
I am just an onlooker. Yesterday he came back and asked if he could be of
assistance. I said he should take a rake and clean up the yard. I’m busy extending
my house without his help.’ …
‘Let them continue, but people will laugh at him/her. I gave him a second chance and
he blew it. My family have given up. I have full support.’…
‘This person. I will even spit on him in his coffin.’14….
‘He has not even come close to me. He sleeps at a distance.’
[75] In response to the accused’s words (that she was extending her house
without the deceased’s help), Viwe had replied:
‘And that is a good punishment by keeping quiet and not asking anything. It will be like
a love potion, you’ll see. He is crazy over an old woman who has given multiple births
…. It will seem as if he has been bewitched. He is interested in an old lady who has
given birth many times.’15…
‘No, just leave him alone. Just condomise so he will not infect you with a sickness. The
children need you. … He is lucky you are not his, but God’s person.’16
[76] Dr Zondi performed an autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16 September
2016 and recorded his facts, findings and opinions (which were formally admitted) in
a medico legal post mortem report. In this report the deceased’s weight is reflected
as 115kg. He is described as “fat”.
14 The accused also make reference to spitting on the deceased’s coffin during a conversation on 20 August 2016 when she was again complaining about the deceased having neglected her. 15 According to Viwe the accused was jealous about a relationship which the deceased was having/cultivating with one Ms Bula who was known to Viwe. 16 When she testified the accused agreed that Viwe had given her this advice, and that she had accepted it.
26
[77] During his evidence, the doctor explained his chief post mortem findings (with
reference to the diagrams annexed to his report) in the following terms:
The wound marked “1” was caused by the projectile entering the anterior chest just
below the collar bone, travelling in an upward mobility and exiting at the left shoulder
(point “2”). The wound marked “3” (one of two fatal wounds) was caused by a second
projectile entering the left torso, travelling in a downward direction and exiting the
right torso near the kidneys at the point marked “4”. This projectile perforated the
jejunal mesentery and the jejunum, the right kidney and the right renal vessels. The
gunshot wound marked “5” (which was also described as fatal) entered the left torso
and travelled towards the back perforating the lumbar vessels and the third lumbar
bone but missing the spinal cord. It left behind a projectile which was removed from
the lumbar spinal region and handed to Warrant Officer Petzer.17 It damaged the left
kidney, lacerated the right kidney, and also caused damage to the right renal artery,
the right kidney and the mesenteric vessel. The deceased also sustained two
superficial gunshot wounds to the right of the torso, marked “7” and “8”.18
[78] All in all the deceased sustained eight gunshot wounds, four of them being
entrance wounds and three exit wounds. In other words, he was shot no more than
four times.
[79] The deceased’s stomach contained 650ml of partially digested food particles
consistent with the consumption of a carbohydrate meal immediately before he was
shot.19
[80] Dr Zondi testified that the deceased would have died rapidly (within 15 minutes
after having sustained the morbid injuries), as he was losing copious amounts of
blood from internal bleeding.20
[81] Lieutenant Colonel Gogela is an analyst at the forensic science laboratory in
Pretoria. At the time of her testimony, she had accumulated ten years’ experience in
the field of gunshot residue analysis. She testified that during 2016 she received
17 No evidence was presented about the fate of this projectile thereafter, except that Petzer filed it away in the SAP 13. 18 According to the doctor gunshot residue testing on the deceased’s clothes (which he had handed to Petzer) would have determined the status of these wounds (whether exit/entrance) with more particularity. There is no evidence that these tests were ever performed. 19 This is also consistent with the accused’s version that the deceased had been eating his breakfast cereal at the time. 20 The doctor testified that according to the hospital records the deceased was declared dead on arrival when he was brought into the hospital at 7.15am.
27
samples in respect of Cambridge CAS 264/09/2016 for primer residue testing. She
analysed the samples and prepared reports marked LAB 382316/16/1 and LAB
32316/16/2 respectively.
[82] She described primer residue as follows:
‘When a firearm is discharged the gases are being ejected through the exit of the
barrel as well as through all the openings of the firearm, that is sideways and in a
backward direction. When these gases descend through gravitational force, they are
deposited on the hands of the shooter and on any other object that is within a two
metre radius from the shooter, or on any other person that is close by.’
[83] The witness explained that if the target is within two metres from the shooter,
primer residue will be deposited on the target as well. The shooter, and any persons
or objects within a two metre radius of the shooter, including the target, are all
referred to as primary carriers of primer residue. She referred to the “two metre
radius” test as being the determining factor. The more shots fired, the more
concentrated would be the deposits of primer residue. If a third party were to touch
the target after the target had been shot, the third party could be contaminated by
what is referred to as the secondary transfer of the primer residue. The third party
would then be referred to as a secondary carrier.
[84] She said that if a secondary carrier were to be tested for the presence of primer
residue within four hours after the primer residue had been transferred to the
secondary carrier, the presence or otherwise and the quantity of primer residue
would depend on the secondary carrier’s hand activity (assuming that the test is
performed on the secondary carriers hands). Primer residue would, for example, be
erased from the hands by activities such as washing or wiping.
[85] The presence of primer residue is detected using a scanning electron
microscope coupled with an X-ray detector. The microscope detects the particle itself
and the X-rays assist to determine its chemical composition.
[86] The witness testified that she received a primer residue kit and a red jacket on
23 September 2016. She analysed the samples in the primer residue kit. The test
sample marked “M8506RIGHT” tested positive for primer residue. The test sample
marked “M8506LEFT” tested negative.
28
[87] She extracted two samples from the jacket, one from the outer right sleeve/cuff
(marked “E469RIGHT”) and one from the outer left sleeve/cuff (marked
“E469LEFT”). They tested positive for characteristic gunshot residue.
[88] Almost five months thereafter ,and on 1 February 2017, the investigating
officer requested her to conduct further analysis on the coat. She extracted a sample
from the inner left sleeve, a sample from the inner right sleeve, a sample from the left
pocket, a sample from the right pocket, a sample from the left front, a sample from
the right front, a sample from the inside collar, a sample from the outside collar, and
two samples from the inner front lining on the left and on the right.
[89] The following samples tested positive for a high concentration of characteristic
primer residue: the inner left sleeve, the inside and outside of the left pocket, the
inside collar, and the left and right inner front lining.
[90] The following samples were negative: the inner right sleeve, the right pocket,
the left and right outer fronts of the jacket and the outside collar.
[91] The witness was asked whether it was possible for primer residue to have
made its way onto the accused’s hand and her jacket, if she had, for example,
carried the deceased (assuming that the deceased had been within a two metre
radius of the shooter rendering the deceased a primary carrier). Her response was
the following:
‘It is possible M’Lady, but as I explained earlier, based on the results that I got I am
ruling out this possibility. … The reason why I am saying I am ruling it out, firstly, is
the amount of particles that I have detected. Secondly, it is the different areas that I
have detected primer residue particles from.’
[92] At the commencement of her cross-examination the witness reiterated that for
samples of the accused’s jacket to have tested positively for primer residue, and
assuming she was wearing the jacket at the time of the shooting, she could only
have been the shooter or within a two metre radius of the shooter when the
shot/shots were fired. She readily conceded however, that samples of the jacket
would also test positive for primer residue if the accused was not the shooter and
29
was also not wearing the jacket, but if the jacket was lying within a two metre radius
of the shooter when the shots were fired.21
[93] Indeed, for purposes of clarification, I dealt with this important issue as follows.
I put the following to her:
Court: Yes, now the other scenario which has been put to you is that if the red jacket
lay close to the shooter, assuming the shooter is not the accused, would you expect
to have found what you did with respect to her right hand and her jacket? ---
Witness: That one M’Lady, I could not say much, because now the Counsel could not
tell me exactly how was the jacket put, because that is very important, how was the
jacket put on the bed. … If the jacket was lying there next to the shooter, I would
expect a lot of particles.
[94] Warrant Officer Lelani was the prosecution’s last witness. He is employed at
the local criminal record centre (the LCRC) in King Williams Town. He attended the
scene at 11.45am on 14 September 2016 and took the photographs which Petzer
referred to in his evidence. He was also the leader of the team which took the scene
over from Petzer. He testified that when he met up with Petzer, Petzer stood outside
the main house and, without the assistance of any aides memoire, manage to
explain to him what he had found inside.22 They then went into the house and Petzer
pointed out the exhibits “that he might have seen”.23 Thereafter Petzer left and Lelani
combed the scene and took photographs using his own discretion.
[95] During his evidence he confirmed that there were four pins, buttons and an
earring scattered on the floor in the main bedroom near the empty jewellery box. In
particular, there was one button lying on the steps to the door between the main
bedroom and the garage. He seized this button because it looked as if it had blood
on it.
[96] The witness was referred to five photos in the album which he had compiled.
All of these photos portray a black background with a couple of blue spots here and
there, and the words “possible blood indications”. According to the witness a
21 The accused’s version is that this jacket was lying on the double bed in the main bedroom of their dwelling, and that she put it on after the deceased was shot and shortly before she escorted the deceased to the hospital. 22 According to Petzer he deferred to entries which he had made in his pocket book when he spoke to Lelani. 23 According to Petzer he did not point anything out to Lelani.
30
chemical called “Blue Star” is used to expose possible blood spots suspected to
have been wiped away, and which cannot be seen with the naked eye.24
[97] He testified that there was also a scratch mark on the laminated floor, the age
of which he was unable to determine, and which could have been caused by a
number of things. He was shown what is purported to be the shirt which the
deceased was wearing when he was shot. He said that the button which he had
seized (which he was unable to produce) appeared to be similar to a button on the
shirt. He also referred to three other buttons which he had apparently retrieved from
the floor of the main bedroom and said that they too, looked as if they had come
from the shirt. In his opinion then, it looked as if there might have been a struggle.
He referred to a photo taken of a spot in the ceiling of the main bedroom and said
that a bullet was found lodged there. It appeared to have ended up there after having
been fired through the door of one of the top cupboards. He said that on the floor of
the second bedroom he could see a red stain which looked like dried blood.
[98] It was during his evidence that a sketch plan of the scene was produced for the
first time. He was not asked by the prosecution whether he was the one who drew it.
I had to extract this information from him. With reference to the sketch plan he was
able to say that there were indications of what could have been blood in the garage,
on the button lying on the steps leading to the garage, on the floor of the main
bedroom, on the floor of the second bedroom, and on the passage floor adjacent to
the doorway leading to the third bedroom. He said that there also appeared to be a
bullet hole in the carpet on the floor of the second bedroom. There was also a spent
bullet lying in the garage.
[99] When the prosecution indicated that it was closing its case, I expressed my
concern about several documents, which were still in the lever arch file handed up
previously, and which remained unaccounted for, either by way of admissions or by
way of proof.25 I duly handed them back to the prosecution, indicating that I intended
disabusing my mind of their contents, subject to their proper reintroduction, if any.
Evidence for the defence
24 According to the key to the photo album these photos were taken in the main bedroom and in the passage the day after the shooting between 09.25 and 13.00. 25 I indicated that these documents commenced with a section205 statement from Old Mutual, followed by various other documents such as laboratory reports referring to two firearms, a document reflecting the time of the deceased’s death etc. etc.
31
[100] The accused testified in her defence. Her evidence on oath, two years after
the deceased was shot, remained materially consistent with what she related to VJ
on the way to the hospital, her affidavit obtained at the hospital, that which she
related to Dabs at the hospital, that which she told the deceased’s mother upon her
return from the hospital, her evidence on affidavit presented at her bail hearing
during October 2016 and her detailed plea explanation tendered at the
commencement of these proceedings. She also confirmed that which had been put
to the state witnesses on her behalf by her counsel.
[101] She testified that on the night preceding the shooting, she and the deceased
had slept together in their matrimonial home at [….]. On the morning of 14
September 2016, she got up and showered. She and the deceased made the bed in
which they had slept. The deceased gave her his clothes to iron. She started ironing
at about 6.15am while the deceased was bathing. Thereafter they both got dressed.
[102] She went to the kitchen to prepare their breakfast cereal. She heard the
deceased shouting outside near the kitchen. He said:
‘Go away! Voetsek! Voetsek!’
She had no cause to believe that there was an intruder. She thought that he was
chasing stray cats who would wander onto their property from time to time.
[103] She poured his cereal into a glass bowl and placed her own in a tupperware
mug. She proceeded to the main bedroom and found him entering the room via the
door linking the garage to the bedroom. She gave him his cereal and they ate. Whist
eating she took a red hat scarf and her red jacket from the wardrobe. She tried on
the hat scarf but decided not to wear it and placed it on their bed. She left the
deceased in the bedroom, still eating and went to the kitchen to prepare her lunch.
She heard what sounded like a glass dish falling on the floor.26 She called out to the
deceased. He did not respond.
[104] Immediately thereafter she heard what sounded like a firearm being
discharged. She was unable to recall how many times she heard this sound. She hid
herself in the corner of the kitchen near the stove.27 Everything blacked out. When
26 The accused said that in hindsight it sounded like a gunshot. 27 It is common cause that the accused was unable to see into the main bedroom from where she maintains she was positioned in the kitchen.
32
things became clearer again, all was quiet. She went from the kitchen down the
passage leading towards their bedroom. When she was in the passage she saw the
deceased. He was kneeling against the frame of the door leading from the passage
into their bedroom. He was facing in the direction of the garage. He said:
‘Take me to the hospital. I’ve been shot.’
[105] He was struggling to speak. At the time he was wearing a navy jacket, a
striped shirt, a white vest and navy trousers. The vest had blood on it. He already
had his car keys and his cell phone in his possession presumably because he was
about to leave for work in his car. Thereafter she took the following steps:
a. She went into the en-suite bathroom bordering the flat of their tenant,
Noligwa. She was hitting the wall and screaming for Noligwa. Noligwa did
not respond.
b. She phoned the deceased’s aunt (Dabs Gebe). She told Dabs that the
deceased had been shot and instructed her to call an ambulance. She did
not wait for Dabs to respond.
c. She pressed the panic button in the main bedroom.28 In less than a minute
the alarm company (ADT) phoned. She told them that her husband had
been shot and that they must call an ambulance and the police. She did
not wait for a response.
d. She then proceeded to assist the deceased to make his way towards the
garage. She walked ahead of him holding onto his elbows. It was difficult.
He was dragging his legs by himself. She helped him down the steps
leading to the garage. She was on her knees holding him. She only let go
of him in the garage when they were at the spot where the rug was
positioned between her car and the wall. He was then lying face down.
She saw that the deceased’s garage door and the main gate to the
property were both open. She opened her garage door. A car stopped
outside and a woman (who later turned out to be VJ) got out. VJ asked her
if she was alright. At the same time her tenant, Noligwa, appeared from
below the garage. She told VJ that her husband had been shot. At this
28 It is common cause that the house has two panic buttons: one in the main bedroom and one in the lounge.
33
stage she was standing in the garage next to the deceased who was lying
on his stomach. VJ took his pulse and confirmed that he was still alive. VJ
said:
‘Let’s pick him up and make him lean against the wall.’
She, VJ and Noligwa lifted him and propped him up against the wall so
that she could reverse her car out of the garage.
e. She went back into the bedroom, grabbed her car keys and reversed her
car out of the garage. VJ instructed her to open both the rear doors of the
car.
f. She, Noligwa and VJ lifted the deceased. She held the upper part of his
body. He was very heavy. When they were about to reach the car a
security official from ADT arrived and assisted them. He also held onto the
upper part of the deceased’s body.
g. Upon further instructions from VJ she collected a pillow and placed it in the
back of the car. She held him under his armpits and helped the others to
put him into the car.
h. She went back into the car to collect her wallet and her medical aid card,
which she could not find.
i. She took her jacket which was lying on their bed. She put it on as she was
moving from the main bedroom into the garage.
[106] When she got back VJ was already behind the wheel. She got into the front
passenger seat and they left. Before they left she closed the deceased’s garage
door. The entire ordeal from the time that she heard the first shot being fired until
they departed for the hospital took eight to ten minutes. They left for the hospital at
about ten past seven.
[107] They travelled along the Hemingways Mall route. VJ wanted to go to Beacon
Bay Life hospital but the accused refused and said they must go to St Dominics
Hospital which was closer. She was supporting the deceased’s body with her right
arm, so when her cell phone rang, VJ had to take the call. It was Dabs. VJ told her
that they were on their way to St Dominics. Before they reached the hospital VJ told
her not to hold onto the deceased as he was getting too hot.
34
[108] When they were about to turn in at St Dominics Hospital the deceased
coughed. They stopped in the emergency parking and got out. Nurses pushed an
orange board under the deceased’s body from the side of his head. The accused
was at his feet. One of the nurses pushed her away. They went in and VJ instructed
her to open a file. She did so. A nurse commented that the deceased was alright.
Dabs arrived. It was then that they were informed that the deceased had passed
away. The accused screamed, calling out his name and those of her children. She
collapsed. She was administered two sedatives for shock.
[109] She remained at the hospital for more than three hours. During that period
she became drowsy and was put to bed. Despite her drowsiness and despite
resistance from the nurses, Warrant Officer Petzer still took an affidavit from her. VJ
was there too, encouraging her to speak. She eventually went home in a brown Audi.
The crime scene had been cordoned off with yellow tape. There were many cars and
many people. VJ arrived with some clothes for her in a plastic packet. She was taken
into the house to collect her toiletry bag. It was then that she saw the bullet hole
through the cupboard in her bedroom for the first time. She did not see her jewellery
box again. It had mainly contained sewing material but also a pair of earrings which
she did not see again. She testified that when she ironed the deceased’s shirt that
morning, it did not have any buttons missing. She was unable to say how buttons
could have come off his shirt, if this evidence were to be accepted. According to her
recollection his shirt was still buttoned up when she and he reached the garage. But
she could not really remember. No other civilian entered the house in her presence
after the deceased was shot. It was first opened again by Petzer who had obtained
the remote control from VJ.
[110] On the following day, the police collected her and escorted her to the police
station. There she told them everything.
[111] The deceased had previously told her that he had been threatened regarding
his position at work as chief of staff in the office of the MEC for Social Development.
When he attended meetings in Queenstown he would call her and report that
members of the ANC had blocked his way and had held him hostage. Once he told
her that the tyres of his car had been slashed. He had to buy new tyres. She saw the
new tyres herself.
35
[112] She was arrested at the deceased’s family home on the night of 30
September 2016. She said that she believed that the police and the deceased’s
family had orchestrated her arrest.
[113] The accused denied that she and the deceased had been engaged in any
argument or physical altercation that morning. She said that they had marriage
problems like anyone else during their second marriage. If these had escalated, she
would have divorced the deceased. After all, she had done this before.
[114] She said that when Ayanda and Buntu were working on the DSTV installing
extra viewing in her main bedroom they saw the deceased’s firearm in the cupboard
where the TV set was situated. She told them that it was the deceased’s firearm.
She was not sure whether they handled the firearm. Ayanda asked her whether she
was not scared of the firearm lying around like that and whether there was no safe
for it. She told them there was no safe.29 It was in this context that she told them that
the deceased had said in the past:
‘I will scatter your brains one day.’30
[115] The accused mentioned that at her bail application it was alleged that she
was involved in an argument with the deceased that morning, because he had slept
out the night before. She said that although he did have many affairs, he slept at
home that night. She produced evidence of his car tracking device to confirm this.
This evidence was not challenged.
[116] She admitted the exchange of confidential messages between herself and
Viwe Dinga. She said that when she sent the messages on 8 and 20 August 2016
she was angry and had used the words about spitting on his coffin as a figure of
speech. She said she was angry on 8 August because he had not returned home the
previous day from Queenstown. She had been constrained to deal with domestic
chores on her own. She was also angry on the night of 20 August because they had
attended a funeral that day and he had not yet returned. She did not know where he
was. She accused the police of having chosen these messages selectively. She said 29 The accused explained that this firearm, which belonged to the deceased, was in safe custody with the Cambridge police at the time that the deceased was shot. It had been handed over to the police on 12 July 2016. 30 The accused added that she did not think the deceased was serious when he said this. They tended to fight one day and make up the next. Words such as these were similar to her saying that she would spit on his coffin one day.
36
that her phone and other conversations would serve as evidence that there were
many joyful and happy times between her and the deceased as well.
[117] She said she could not remember how her red jacket was lying on the bed
before she put it on. She said that she could not comment on how primer residue
was found both on the outside and on the lining of her jacket. Indeed, she was
surprised that primer residue was found on her right hand. Before her hands were
tested, she had used the bathroom at the hospital, and had washed her hands and
wiped them on the front of the jacket she was wearing. She took this jacket off and
the police seized it before they conducted primer residue tests on her hands. This
was at about 11am that same morning. She did not see the jacket again.
[118] She did not know how her jewellery box ended up on her bedroom floor. She
did not leave it there when she went to prepare breakfast that morning.
[119] In a nutshell, the accused denied that she played any part in the killing of the
deceased, or for that matter, in facilitating his murder or soliciting or engaging the
services of others to kill him.
[120] Retired Captain Wolmarans was called as a defence witness. He has been
a firearms handler for the past 53 years and his reputation as an expert in matters
pertaining to internal, external and terminal ballistics and fingerprint evidence
precedes him. After having inspected the scene he concluded that the bullet which
entered the door of the TV cupboard in the main bedroom was unstable. The
instability could have been caused by the bullet travelling through a person’s body.
Unfortunately, and if it did strike a person, it was not possible to say where the
shooter or the target would have been positioned in relation to each other or
anything else in the main bedroom. This aspect of his evidence was not challenged.
[121] Wolmarans was handed the two ballistics affidavits (deposed to by Captain
Kamteni) which I had handed back to the prosecutor at the close of the State’s case.
It was placed on record that the prosecution agreed with the facts, findings and
opinions reflected in these affidavits.
[122] The upshot of Wolmarans’s evidence, is that he agreed with what is
reflected in these documents with respect to the trajectory of the projectiles and
where they landed. He was unfortunately not able to assist with the primer residue
evidence as this is not his field of expertise, although he had taught personnel at
some stage about primer residue. He deferred to and agreed with Lt Col. Gogela’s
description of primer residue, how it is disseminated, where it may be found, and the
37
difference between a primary and a secondary recipient thereof. He was not
however, able to say how one can categorically distinguish between what he referred
to as original residue (primary residue) and secondary residue which he described
as residue which is transferred from something which has already been
contaminated.
[123] After calling, in my view, an inconsequential witness whom the police had at
some stage fruitlessly confronted about his licenced firearm, the defence closed its
case.
[124] Thereafter the prosecution applied to re-open its case, to somewhat
belatedly deal with Cpt. Kamteni’s evidence, purportedly to explain the presence of
certain evidence in the accused’s garden, which I will deal with in due course. The
application was not seriously opposed. I am not surprised. By all accounts the
prosecution were about to place the defendant’s star witness on the stand.
[125] Captain Kamteni works at the police forensic science laboratory in Port
Elizabeth. He has been there since 2008. He prepared the forensic affidavits which I
have already referred to.
[126] For ease of reference, and because of the importance of these documents in
this particular matter, I intend dealing with these affidavits contemporaneously with
his particularly insightful evidence on the witness stand.
The ballistic evidence
[127] The first affidavit is marked “A43” and the heading reads “LAB373917/16
CAMBRIDGE CAS 264/09/2016”31. It is an affidavit deposed to in terms of section
212(4)(a) of the Act. The relevant portions of this section read as follows:
31 It is trite that a criminal docket consists of three internal sections, an A clip, a B clip and a C clip. The A clip mainly holds the first information of the crime, statements and affidavits, medical and expert reports and affidavits and documentary exhibits such as photograph albums and plans, warrants of arrest, and sometimes even a precise of the case complied by the chief investigating officer. In the main however the A clip contains evidence which is filed in chronological order starting with A1. The B clip contains all correspondence in connection with the case, copies of negative reports, covering letters, receipts, press releases and anything which does not belong in the other clips. The C clip (referred to as the “investigation diary”) is reserved for police and prosecution correspondence and instructions with respect to the developments and problems in the matter. Thus “A43” simply means that this was the 43rd item filed under the A clip. The case administration system number (the CAS number) in this matter is Cambridge 264/09/2016, which is the same number reflected at the top of the affidavit.
38
‘Whenever any fact established by any examination or process requiring any skill- …
is or may become relevant to the issue at criminal proceedings, a document
purporting to be an affidavit made by a person … in the State .. shall upon its mere
production at such proceedings be prima facie proof of that fact …’
[128] In these affidavits Cpt. Kamteni set forth his extensive experience over the
past eight years, which, significantly, happens to included advanced crime scene
reconstruction. He testified that on 15 September 2016 the crime scene was pointed
out by Captain Somkhence, whom I assume purports to be the investigator in this
case. His mandate was “crime scene reconstruction” and “scene photography”, as
well as “bullet trajectory examination”.
[129] He detected three bullet holes in the top wardrobe door and cornice of the
main bedroom and a bullet in the ceiling. He spotted two possible bullet defects and
a possible bullet hole on the floor and in the carpet of the second bedroom.
[130] His trajectory examinations revealed that:
a. The bullet holes in the main bedroom were caused by one bullet which
perforated the top wardrobe door, hit the cornice and lodged in the
ceiling. The shot was probably fired in the main bedroom in an upward
trajectory.
b. The first defect found in the second bedroom was probably caused by a
bullet fired in an downward trajectory possibly in the passage outside the
second bedroom or in the second bedroom itself.
c. The two possible bullet holes in the floor rug in bedroom two were fired
in a downward direction with the shooter either in the passage outside
room two or in bedroom two itself.
d. The bullet found in the ceiling of the main bedroom was collected by
Warrant Officer Yelani of East London LCRC.
[131] The affidavit was deposed to at Port Elizabeth on 29 September 2016, two
weeks after the deceased was shot.
[132] The second affidavit has the same CAS number but the lab number is
amplified to read “37391/16 (2+3).
39
[133] Therein Kamteni states that on 23 September 2016 (nine days after the
deceased was shot), he received a sealed evidence bag from the case
administration section of his unit. Inside that was another bag containing:
a. Three 9mm parabellum fired cartridge cases which were marked A2, A7
and A13;
b. Two 9mm calibre fired bullets marked A12 and A15;
c. One 9mm parabellum calibre cartridge marked A10.
[134] He also received a second sealed exhibit bag containing a 9mm calibre fired
bullet marked B and a fired bullet jacket marked BB.32
[135] The third bag contained a piece of rug.
[136] Four days later, and on 27 September he received a sealed evidence bag
containing a 9mm fired bullet marked E.
[137] The next day he received an IBIS (the integrated ballistic identification
system which can link crime scenes) sealed bag containing a 7,65mm calibre fired
test bullet (fired from the deceased’s 7,65mm calibre CZ model VZOR semi-
automatic pistol with serial number 695965 (which appears to have been at
Cambridge police station at the time of the shooting, having been handed over by
the deceased before he was shot). After having completed his forensic
examinations, Cpt. Kamteni arrived at the following conclusions:
a. The bullets marked A12 and B3 were fired in the same firearm.
b. The bullets marked A15 and E were fired in a second firearm.
c. The cartridge cases marked A7 and A13 were fired in the same firearm.
d. The cartridge case marked A2 was fired in a second firearm.
e. The jacket marked BB is undetermined with the 7,65 test bullet allegedly fired in
the deceased’s firearm due to lack of sufficient marks. This led the captain to
conclude that exhibit BB “is possibly not related to the scene”.
[138] Kamteni explained that the projectile “BB” which was allegedly found in the
deceased’s garden consisted of a piece of jacket which was old and damaged and
which appeared to have been fired before the day the deceased was shot. He could
32 According to the plan and the photos, the bullet jacket marked BB was found in the yard of the home to the left of the deceased’s garage, as one faces the garaging.
40
see that the jacket had been fired in the deceased’s firearm but elected to describe
his findings as inconclusive due to the age and the condition of the projectile.
[139] What Captain Kamteni was able to conclude beyond any doubt, was that the
projectiles (which he had been informed came from the scene of this murder and
which has become common cause) had been fired from at least two 9mm pistols.
This much he made quite clear. He was in any event not challenged with respect to
this aspect of his evidence.
Analysis and evaluation of the evidence
The projectiles found
[140] This evidence is clear and undisputed. Spent projectiles from at least two
9mm pistols were seized at the scene. No evidence was led as to when and how
they were seized. I can only assume that it must have been after Captain had visited
and reconstructed the scene on 15 September 2016.
The primer residue
[141] Lt Colonel Gogela testified that she found characteristic primer residue at the
following places:
a. In a sample which purports to have been taken from the accused’s right
hand. Her evidence was silent on the strength of the concentration or
where exactly on the right hand the tests were extrapolated from. By all
accounts the latter information was not made available to her.
b. The left inner sleeve of the jacket;
c. The left and right outer sleeves/cuffs;
d. The left pocket (inside and outside);
e. The inside collar;
f. The left and right front inner lining.
[142] The concentration on the jacket was high.
[143] The following samples tested negative:
a. The right sleeve;
41
b. The right pocket;
c. The left and right lapels;
d. The outside collar.
[144] According to the authors French, Morgan and Davy, the presence of gunshot
residue (“GSR”) may not always indicate that a person discharged a firearm. The
possibility for misidentification of the shooter exists, as does the potential to
distinguish shooters from those who have acquired GSR through secondary transfer.
As at 2013, these authors were still advocating for further experiments employing
automated SEM-EDX (scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray
analysis), which will hopefully add to our understanding of GSR transfer evidence
and continue to improve the accuracy of interpretations which are presented in court.
[145] I hasten to add that according to Lt Colonel Gogela’s lab reports she attended
a training course and workshop on primer residue analysis with SEM-EDX presented
by the Forensic Science Laboratory in 2008. Indeed, and also according to her
reports, she utilised this technique when she analysed the test samples. My difficulty
is not with the technique she used. It is with what the prosecution managed to
extrapolate from her during her testimony in order to place evidence before this
court, which, in the absence of any other highly persuasive evidence, alternatively; in
the absence of any other gainsaying evidence would, standing alone, be sufficient to
justify a conviction. This unfortunately did not happen. When asked for example
whether it was possible for the GSR to have made its way onto the accused’s hand
and jacket if she had touched the deceased after he was shot her response was that
she was ruling out the possibility because of the amount of particles detected and
the areas where they were found. For all intents and purposes, this extremely
important and somewhat complex expert evidence abruptly ended there. She was
not asked to explain what she meant by “the amount of particles”. She was not
asked to explain what she meant when she referred to a “high concentration” of
primer residue. She was not asked to explain where indeed a high concentration
ends, and a low concentration begins. She was not asked to furnish qualitative and
quantative evidence regarding primary and secondary residue.
[146] The learned authors I have referred to repeat that the detection of GSR on a
sample taken from the hands, face or clothing of an individual may not only indicate
that the individual has been in the vicinity of the discharging firearm, but also that the
42
person has made contact with surface onto which GSR has previously been
deposited (which in this case appears to be the jacket which was left in the main
bedroom where at least one shot was fired).
[147] In discussing this concept the authors opine that the most established and
refined technique is what is referred to as SEM-EDX. Employing this method
involves a dual approach to detection and analysis – particles are morphologically
detected via their size/shape characteristics and are examined for the presence of
certain elements. Careful examination of particles and an awareness of the context
in which they were found are therefore necessary. In the matter before me, the
forensic witness made it clear that forensic experts in her field do not attend upon the
scene and collect evidence themselves. They do not become a party to the
investigation. They do not insist on obtaining samples from other subjects or objects
directly or indirectly related to the scene. They simply take what they are given and
do what they are told. I am not in the least surprised that when it was suggested to
her that the accused’s red jacket may well have been within a two metre radius of
the shooter when it was lying on the bed, that she was unable to offer any useful
comment or to negate the suggestion. What she did say, was that if the jacket was
lying next to the shooter, she would have expected “a lot of particles” which is
exactly what she did find. She found a high concentration of PGR on the jacket.
[148] According to the authors subjects can also acquire GSR during arrest for
example. The presence of limited amounts of GSR on the hands of firearm-carrying
officers (such as policemen) and in police vehicles and facilities creates a real
potential for limited secondary transfer contamination. In the matter before me, it was
extremely important for the three witnesses who took samples from the accused’s
hands to explain in detail exactly what they did, exactly where on her hands they
obtained the samples from, how they went about this sensitive task and whether they
were not themselves previously contaminated when they did so. None of this
evidence was led.
[149] The authors Lindsay et al. found that in certain conditions shooters and
bystanders could not be distinguished from each other on the basis of GSR counts,
and concluded that areas such as the relative GSR counts and particle
characteristics taken from shooters as opposed to subjects who have made contact
with a surface carrying GSR have not been fully explored. Indeed, the results of a
43
series of experiments carried out by the Surrey Police Tactical Firearms Unit have
provided strong evidence that secondary transfer mechanisms can result in the
transfer of GSR particles to an individual who was not present when the firearm was
discharged. Furthermore, the population of particles detected on the subject
following a secondary transfer suggests that, in theory, a detectable tertiary transfer
may even be possible.
[150] These learned authors say that with reference to the applicability of these
findings, the results point to a number of possible implications for forensic protocol in
an investigation involving GSR analysis. When collecting samples, it is desirable to
sample, as soon as possible, as many surfaces and subjects that may have been
involved and in contact with the suspected shooter or firearm as possible. The
importance of ensuring the accuracy of these measures is underlined, and
accordingly, the need to manually verify and review the output of analysts is
stressed. The findings also emphasise the need to be aware that secondary
transfers may continue to operate during arrest, suspect handling or firearm seizure.
The findings from this study highlight the potential for GSR counts to assist in
distinguishing the shooter from individuals who have acquired GSR through
secondary transfer. Thus the implications of this study for a forensic investigation
include the necessity to sample from as many subjects and surfaces as possible, to
enable the reconstruction of the crime scene as accurately as possible. As I have
already said, none of this was done. The only tests that were performed were on a
pre-selected suspect and her red jacket.
[151] According to the writers the sizes of particles recovered from a shooter and
from secondary contact may indeed be very similar, and the presence of large
particles must not be assumed to be necessarily indicative of firing a gun.33
[152] It is also well documented that GSR can be easily tampered with and altered
due to its fine talcum powder like consistency. Its composition can be ruined by the
simple washing of hands or the dusting down of clothes. According to Los Angles
forensic toxicology expert witness Okarie Okarocka, the weight to be attached to
GSR evidence hinges on too many factors, which is one of the reasons why the FBI
33 The views expressed at paras 144 to 151 of this judgment have been taken from a research article in the 2014, 43rd publication of X-Ray Spectrometry (pages 56-61) titled “The secondary transfer of gunshot residue: an experimental investigation carried out with SEM-EDX analysis” by James French, Ruth Morgan and James Davey.
44
closed its GSR test laboratory way back in 2006. The authors opine that its safest
use is to corroborate a point, rather than to rely thereon as leading evidence.34
[153] It is in any event so that on the evidence as it stands, a reasonable possibility
exists that:
a. Any primer residue which may have been found could conceivably
have made its way onto the accused’s jacket which she says was lying
on their double bed when the deceased was shot. There is no
reconstructive evidence before me to suggest that the shooter was
more than two metres away from the bed.
b. The residue detected in a sample taken from the accused’s right hand
could at the very least have been transferred there when she assisted
the deceased indoors (her version in this regard stands
uncontradicted), outdoors, when she touched her coat when she put it
on, and/or when she wiped her hands on the front of her jacket after
she had washed them in the hospital (as demonstrated by her). There
is no evidence that the residue found in this sample was highly
concentrated. What is however significant is that some parts of the
jacket tested positive and some negative. In my view it is possible that
any residue which may have been in the right inner sleeve could also
have transferred onto her right hand when she pushed it through the
sleeve while dressing. This would explain while the right sleeve tested
negative.
c. As I have said, while the residue may have been removed when she
washed her hands, it could conceivably have been re-transferred from
her coat onto her hands when she wiped them on the front of her
jacket. That would explain why the front lapels tested negative.
d. It is also conceivable that the accused would have used one or both of
her pockets, which would explain why the right hand tested positive but
the right pocket negative.
e. All in all, a myriad of possibilities exist, but they may very well border
on speculation, and I do not have to rely on them in order to justify the
finding I intend making.
34 Forensic Toxicology: “The reliability of gunshot residue” Okarie Okoracha, 8 December 2017.
45
[154] That brings me to the question of whether the prosecution has established
any honest and reliable evidence which can to some extent be corroborated by the
primer residue evidence, as uncertain as it may be, and if so, whether the ballistic
evidence that two 9mm pistols were used does not, in any event have the effect of
cancelling the probative value of such evidence, when the test is after all proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.
The circumstantial lay witnesses
[155] Insofar as it may be necessary, I am constrained to briefly deal with the
value of the evidence presented by the relevant lay witnesses in this matter.
[156] Not much turns on the evidence of the deceased’s mother, Monica Ndudula.
She assisted the Court by sketching some of the background to the relationship
which existed between the accused and the deceased. It is clear that there is not
much love lost between the accused and her mother-in-law. What is relevant is that
the version which the accused told Mrs Ndudula that same day dovetails in all
material respects with what the accused told VJ (the first person she could talk to
immediately after the deceased had been shot), Dabs, Warrant Officer Petzer, on
affidavit at her bail application the following month, her detailed plea explanation at
the commencement of this trial, and her evidence on oath before me.
[157] Ayanda Tuswa and Buntu Jwaai do not take the matter any further. They are
not in a position to dispute that the firearm which they saw at the parties matrimonial
home belonged to the deceased, and that it was taken to Cambridge police station
for safekeeping after they saw it, but before the deceased was shot. Indeed, none of
this is in dispute.
[158] The tenant, Noligwa Mkungeka, did not impress me as a witness. She
deposed to at least three versions on oath. Some of these versions contain serious
allegations. All of these versions not only contain material contradictions within
themselves, but they also contradict each other. Noligwa explained that she changed
her version the very next day because she initially did not want to get involved, but
then decided to speak the truth because VJ had done so. I am not persuaded by this
explanation. It is not mere coincidence that Noligwa’s first affidavit, deposed to no
more than seven hours after the shooting, dovetails in material respects with the
accused’s consistent version, particularly in that the two of them had practically no
46
opportunity to collude before their affidavits were obtained. The following aspects of
her first affidavit have been, and still are, directly or by implication confirmed by the
accused:
a. That at about 6.45am Noligwa heard the accused shouting and crying for
her to come.
b. That when Noligwa first saw the accused the accused was in a state of
panic, and not this emotionless being who appeared not to have been
effected by the shooting at all (which is the picture which the prosecution
seeks to portray).
[159] Also, in her first affidavit, Noligwa categorically stated that she heard no
noise that morning, except for the accused crying and calling her. In contrast,
Noligwa’s second affidavit, taken after a lengthy interrogation by the police the next
day, is embroidered with fanciful detail, vivid description and material deviations from
the little that is reflected in her first version. For example, she talks about having
heard a “whistle” when she woke up, an hour earlier than the time mentioned in her
previous affidavit. To my mind, the time that she was awoken is not a factor which
Noligwa needed to lie about just because she did not want to get involved. I find it
both curious and inexplicable that she elected to commence the day an entire hour
earlier than in her first affidavit. Thereafter she immediately embarks on a minutely
detailed rendition of what took place next door, including verbatim repetition of words
and expressions allegedly used and conduct displayed which can only be intended
to directly incriminate the accused. Indeed, what Noligwa managed to do overnight,
was to substitute, on her version, the accused with the deceased as the person
crying out for help. This, in my view, is a quantum leap which cannot simply be
ignored.
[160] Her explanation that VJ had spoken the truth to the police and that she
wished to follow suit does not hold water. It is clear from the evidence that VJ
deposed to her detailed second affidavit after Noligwa’s second statement had been
taken. She conceded this much later on in her evidence.
[161] All in all, Noligwa mentioned eight occasions where she had deliberately lied
in her first affidavit after having taken a solemn oath to speak the truth. She was not
able to explain why VJ had posted messages confirming that she, Noligwa, had told
VJ to come over because the accused was crying (and not the deceased). This was
47
not her version in her second or her third statement on oath. Nor could she explain
why she was suddenly insisting that the accused had not touched the deceased,
when VJ had told her friends (twice) that the accused had helped to load the
deceased into her car (which has also been consistent with the accused’s version
throughout).
[162] I have already mentioned the number of occasions where Noligwa was
shown to have been disingenuous at some time or another during these
proceedings. The point is simply that I do not know which of her versions to take into
account in order to qualify her as a witness who is both honest and reliable, which, in
the light of the fact that Noligwa is a single witness regarding what transpired in the
deceased’s home directly before and after he was shot, is a call which I am
constrained to make. Indeed, it seems to me that the probabilities are that the simple
version which Noligwa presented before having spoken to anyone, and before
having been interrogated, appears to be closer to the truth than any of her other
versions. Timewise it is consistent with that mentioned by the other witnesses,
including the accused. Content-wise, she did not have the opportunity to embellish,
to fabricate or to be influenced when she deposed to it so soon after the event.
[163] The same applies to VJ. She strikes me as a forceful character who naturally
takes the part of the classical dramatis persona. She is given to dramatization. This
is evident from the way she took control of the scene from the outset. It is also
evident from the way she played off the drama to her friends on social media. It was
also very apparent when I observed her demeanour during the course of her
evidence. By way of illustration, in her affidavit deposed to at the hospital VJ states
that she saw a bullet hole in the house when she first arrived at the scene and that
she then asked the accused about a firearm. Factually and objectively, this cannot
be correct. When she deposed to this first affidavit she had not yet been inside the
house. Nor is there any evidence from the accused or the other witnesses that VJ
took it upon herself to question the accused about a firearm when she arrived on the
scene.
[164] She too, in her second affidavit deposed to three days later, insists that the
accused did not help at all, quite contrary to what she told her friends on social
media at her earliest opportunity to share her dramatic experience.
[165] I have already mentioned the aspects of her evidence which I find most
troubling. With VJ too, who has deposed to three versions on oath and a fourth on
48
social media, I simply do not know what to rely on. VJ, by her very nature, appears
to be tempted by hyperbole and is prone to exaggeration. If any, her purpose in this
trial was to demonstrate that the accused has been consistent in her version from
beginning to end. That much was revealed when she related the accused’s account
to her of what had just transpired when they were on their way to the hospital.
[166] DWO Petzer assisted this court at the very least to have some idea of what
the scene must have looked like after the shooting. If, and I repeat, if he did take VJ
into the house after the scene had been cordoned off, I am disappointed and he is
cautioned against the repetition of such irregular conduct. Of particular significance
however is his evidence that they searched the house and the surrounding premises
with a fine toothcomb, but could not find a mop with blood on it, nor could they find a
smoking gun/guns. The fact that they managed to find an old, rusty bullet jacket
buried in the garden is evidence that the search was intensive.
[167] As for the evidence of Dabs, I am of the view that she is, in all probability,
the most neutral witness in this trial. She was also in a position to provide this court
with a reliable time frame for significant events by reference to her cell phone
records. According to Noligwa’s first affidavit the drama unfolded at 06.45am when
she heard the accused crying and calling her. According to Dabs the accused
phoned her at 06.56am to advise her that the deceased had been shot and to
summons an ambulance. According to VJ she (VJ) arrived at the crime scene at
06.59am. By 7.10 at the latest (according to the accused) they were on their way to
the hospital. According to the hospital records the deceased was pronounced dead
on arrival at about 7.15am. This means that the entire drama was likely to have
unfolded over a period of not much longer than 30 minutes.
[168] Dabs did not try to create the impression that the accused was behaving with
no emotion whatsoever. She admits that the accused cried out when she heard that
the deceased had succumbed to his wounds, that the accused had to be given
tranquilisers, and that she even swopped shoes with the accused who was unsteady
on her feet. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that the accused, who strikes me as an
intelligent, alert and educated woman, would have had no problem feigning shock
and hysteria if she had been responsible for the shooting, and considered it
beneficial to her cause to throw herself into the dramatic role of the hysterical,
shocked and grieving widow.
49
[169] As for the messages between Viwe Dinga and the accused, it seems clear
that the accused was still experiencing problems in her second marriage. But in my
view, that is where it ends. Flighty and irresponsible expressions and emotive
remarks made in moments of anger, jealousy, rage or sadness, on their own, fall
way below what this court requires as proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a murder.
Like the somewhat inconclusive primer residue evidence, such statements should
best be relied on as corroboration for a case worth defending, and not as the be-all
and end-all of a mariticide prosecution.
[170] Turning to the accused herself, I can best describe her as a woman who has
made her best endeavours to prove her innocence without playing a cat and mouse
game with this court. In doing so, she has, by and large, abandoned the bouquet of
rights she is entitled to in terms of the Constitution, without prevarication or
hesitation. She entered into the potentially dangerous realm of making admissions
regarding matter which is way beyond the scope of her expertise and which does not
lie within her own personal knowledge. She has, for all intents and purposes, played
open cards with the authorities from the time that she was arrested, and also with
this court during her trial. When I say this, I do not ignore the fact that she is
obviously distancing herself from any problems in the second marriage, wishing to
portray herself in the best possible light in that regard. I accept that there were
problems in the second marriage. I accept that she made utterances in private and in
confidence which, I have no doubt, she would not have done if she knew that they
were going to be used against her in a murder trial. This does not qualify her as a
killer. As I have said, the accused has been consistent from day one. She made a
good impression on me in the witness box, and her evidence remained consistent
and clear. I have observed her carefully. Insofar as she seems to have been
expected, at the time of the shooting, to have acted with more dramatization, I can
only say this: The accused has had many opportunities throughout this trial to either
malinger or to genuinely be given to extreme emotional conduct. She has lost her
husband, the man who, by all accounts, had agreed to give their marriage a second
chance. Instead, she has elected to maintain her composure during the conduct of
these proceedings. This is the type of person she simply appears to be.
Conclusion
50
[171] At the end of the day, this court is left with a very simple exercise: to consider
the weight to be attached to the inconclusive primer residue evidence on which the
state seeks to be rely, as opposed to the damning evidence of the two firearms. The
answer is obvious.
[172] The ballistic evidence is overwhelming. It emanates from the State’s own
witness and it has not been challenged. Even if the evidence of the circumstantial
witnesses was honest and reliable (which it is not) and even if the evidence
regarding the primary residue was highly persuasive (which it is not) this court is still
faced with the uncontested evidence that the projectiles submitted for ballistic testing
show that the probabilities are overwhelmingly strong that at least two 9mm firearms
were used in the commission of the offence, neither of which have been found
despite a diligent search. Neither of which have been found, when it is clear from the
objective evidence that the accused had little or no opportunity to readjust the scene
and to dispose of any weapon or weapons. This is a hurdle which the prosecution
was aware of long before the commencement of this trial, and which it has not been
able to overcome.
[173] Indeed, when I asked the prosecutor to comment on Cp.t Kamteni’s evidence
his response was the following:
“The evidence taken wholistically does not exclude the accused from the
commission of the offences, despite the existence of evidence that two
firearms might have been used.”
[174] In my view, such a submission on behalf of the party on whom the onus rests
to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, can only be described as frivolous,
vexatious and irresponsible.
[175] The duty of the prosecution is to seek justice, not to blindly and purposelessly
plunder after a conviction at all costs.35
[176] By virtue of s22(6) of the code of conduct for prosecutors in terms of the
National Prosecuting Authority Act of 1998 prosecutors must strive to be seen to be
consistent, independent and impartial. With respect to impartiality, prosecutors are
expected to take into account all relevant circumstances and to ensure that 35 Taken from the United Nations Guidelines on the role of prosecutors.
51
reasonable enquiries are made about evidence irrespective of whether these
enquiries are to the advantage or disadvantage of the alleged offender. They are to
assist the court to arrive at a just verdict. With respect to the administration of justice,
prosecutors are expected, throughout the course of the proceedings, to prosecute
the case objectively and fairly. It is expected of them to safeguard the rights of the
accused persons, in line with the law and in the line with applicable international
instruments required in a fair trial. They are expected, as soon as is reasonably
possible, to disclose to the accused person relevant prejudicial and beneficial
information in accordance with the law and the requirements of a Constitutionally fair
trial. A prosecutor does not have a “client” in the conventional sense. The prosecutor
acts in the public interest. He/she is not the legal representative for victims of crime.
[177] I find myself quite incapable of comprehending why the damning ballistic
evidence of Captain Kamteni was withheld from this court throughout the State’s
case. Indeed it may well have remained undetected altogether, but for this court
having expressed concerns about it, and but for it having been properly placed
before me during the defence case.
[178] Indeed, in the light of this damning evidence, I find it difficult to comprehend
why the accused was prosecuted on the grounds set forth in the State’s indictment,
or at all for that matter, particularly in that the prosecution has not called upon me to
find that the accused was, at all material times, brandishing two 9mm pistols.
[179] The test to apply when dealing with circumstantial evidence is set forth in R v
Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202 and 203. It is two-pronged:
a. The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with the proven
facts. If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn.
b. The proven facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable
inference save the one sought to be drawn. If they do not exclude other
reasonable inferences, then there must be doubt whether the inference
sought to be drawn is indeed correct.
[180] At best for the prosecution, it has touched on a possible altercation between
the accused and the deceased before he was shot, when they were the only two
people in the matrimonial home. There is evidence to suggest that the couple had
marriage problems. There is evidence to suggest that the accused had some form of
primer residue on her right hand and on her red jacket on that day. On the other
52
hand, there is conclusive evidence in support of an irresistible inference that shots
were fired from at least two firearms when the deceased met his death. In the
circumstances, the only reasonable inference is not that the accused shot her
husband. On the contrary, and in the light of the evidence before me, the reasonable
inference is that she did not.
[181] On count two, the unlawful possession of an unlicenced 9mm parabellum
semi-automatic pistol, I found you not guilty. On court three, the unlawful possession
of ammunition for this pistol, I find you not guilty. On count one, the murder of your
husband Sakhekile Ndudula on 14 September 2016 at your matrimonial home, I find
you not guilty.
[182] You are discharged. You are free to go.
__________________ I T STRETCH 8 October 2018 JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
Counsel for the State: Mr S Mtsila
Director of Public Prosecutions, Grahamstown
Counsel for the accused: Mr M Maseti
Instructed by: S N Jiba Attorneys, East London