The Northern Cape High Court will make a decision on whether some of the charges against the seven accused standing trial for the murder of well-known Kimberley businessman Piet Els should be discharged.
THE NORTHERN Cape High Court will make a decision on whether some of the charges against the seven accused standing trial for the murder of well-known Kimberley businessman Piet Els should be discharged.
This follows after all the accused brought Section 174 applications before the court, claiming that there is no evidence against them to be convicted of the crime.
Judge Lawrence Lever, after the State, represented by Advocate Hannes Cloete, brought counter-arguments on why the accused still have a case to answer, indicated that he will have to consider and digest all arguments brought by the defence, as well as the State, before making a decision on the matter.
The seven accused – Morapedi Rankali, Montlalentwa Qhautse, Lizbeth Ndlala, Oupa Jeffrey Mahomane, Themba Lawrence Maja, Samson Mbokane and Jabulani Wilson Zuma – are facing charges of murder, house robbery, housebreaking with the intent to commit robbery and unlawful possession of firearms.
Els and his partner, Magrietha Alsemgeest, were brutally attacked on his farm outside Kimberley during the early hours of January 24, 2018.
Several valuable items, including jewellery, Krugerrands, diamonds, cellphones and two firearms, were stolen during the incident.
Cloete said that while the defence’s argument was that some of the accused could not be placed at the scene of the crime, there was, however, sufficient evidence to show that the accused were co-perpetrators.
“One can be a co-perpetrator without having to be present on the scene,” he said.
Cloete said that although some of the accused tried to disassociate themselves from the incident, they were however implicated by the statements of their so-accused.
“Accused 5 (Maja), through his lawyer, painted himself as someone who only arrived at the scene after the victims were tied up and attacked. That is not true as it was the testimony from Alsemgeest that the four men entered the house together. The attack on the couple took place immediately after the men entered the house. There is no evidence in front of the court that any of the robbers entered the house after the others were already there,” said Cloete.
He added that the defence’s claim that the accused did not know each other prior to the incident and only came to Kimberley to perform a traditional ritual, was also false.
“Accused 1 (Rankali) is linked to the crime because the two pieces of the ring which belonged to the deceased were found in his possession. There is also testimony that he was the only one who frequently drove the Audi that was spotted near the scene of the crime during the early morning hours following the incident. Accused 1 also gave the names of possible suspects and was able to point out accused 2 to the police. Accused 1 kept the pieces of the ring safely tucked away in his identity document. That shows that he took ownership of the ring pieces,” Cloete said.
“Accused 2 (Qhautse) admitted to being the owner of the tekkies which prints were found at the scene of the crime. The police official testified that accused 1 used to visit the place where accused 2 and Karabo Rankali, the brother of accused 1, was staying.
“The argument was also that accused 2 (Qhautse) was not residing at the address where he was arrested. Accused 2 was arrested at the house of Ramolo, who is also implicated in the matter. Accused 1 was also able to find accused 2, which shows that the two knew each other.”
Cloete said that accused 3 (Ndlala) and 4 (Mahomane) are also not a “poor and innocent” couple as they want the court to believe.
“Accused 3 and 4 were found in possession of stolen property from the scene. It is not just a matter that they each accepted R10,000, but they had specific goods from the robbery, like the camera.
“Accused 3 is said to be a poor woman from the rural area, but if she is so innocent why did she take R10,000 and bags of coins. Accused 4 took a watch which belonged to the deceased. That is a clear indication that this couple shared in the loot that was robbed from the scene. In total they received R20,000 cash for doing absolutely nothing. This contradicts that accused 3 and 4 merely came to Kimberley under the pretence to perform a ritual.
“It was also accused 3 and 4 who brought accused 5 (Maja) to Kimberley. This evidence is critical as accused 5 was one of the four assailants. That is also an indication that not only did accused 3 and 4 know about the robbery that would occur in Kimberley, but that they contributed by arranging one of the assailants.
“Accused 5 came for a specific purpose. Accused 5 was the representative of the Mpumalanga group. Accused 5 makes reference to the ‘elders’ and when looking at the ages of accused 3, 4, 5 and 7 (Zuma), one can see that they are elderly. Accused 5 was to represent the elders in the robbery and was the foot-soldier for them.
“It appears that certain people were selected to do the ‘dirty’ work and it appears that accused 5 is related to accused 3. The other three assailants were selected by Ralihlare and they were from Kimberley.”
Cloete further argued that the statements of the accused contradicted their versions of their relationship.
“Accused 3 said accused 6 (Mbokane) and 7 contacted her to perform a traditional ritual. She implicated those two accused. Accused 3 said they met accused 5 in Nelspruit. There she distances herself from accused 5, who is her relative. However, accused 4, who is the husband to accused 3, said that they took accused 5 along with them.
“Accused 7 (Zuma), points the finger at accused 6, saying that it was accused 6’s idea to come to Kimberley.
“Accused 5 points a serious finger at accused 3 by stating that accused 3 said she received calls from people in Kimberley who told her that they got Krugerrands. According to accused 3, accused 5 said the Kruger money was on a farm of a white man. This is an indication that accused 3 is much deeper involved.
“In the case of accused 7, he was pointed out by accused 6. Accused 6 said that he did not know the owner of the house in Kimberley where they stayed, but the owner knew accused 7.
“Accused 6 further pointed out accused 7 as the person who counted money after the robbery and gave them each R10,000. Accused 6 said a lady with a blanket put the money and coins in a blanket and they left for Mpumalanga. The lady in the blanket was accused 3,” Cloete said.
The matter continues in the Northern Cape High Court on Friday.
