The trial-within-a-trial into the admissibility of evidence from the arrest of accused number one, Musa Kekana, is set to continue in the Johannesburg High Court on Tuesday morning when the trial of alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala resumes.
Pimi Alfred Sekgobela, the lead arresting officer who began testifying on Monday, is expected to continue his evidence about the events leading to Kekana’s arrest, hours after the killing of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart.
Matlala trial: Defence attacks credibility of State witness’s identification of accused Kekana
Matlala trial: Witness outlines surveillance leading to suspect’s arrest
Matlala trial: State fights application to exclude Musa Kekana’s evidence
Before court adjourned, Sekgobela said Kekana was properly informed of his constitutional rights, including his right to remain silent.
Matlala and his four co-accused are facing a combined 25 charges, including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud and money laundering.
Sekgobela’s testimony comes as the State is trying to prove that anything Kekana said during and after his arrest is fair play.
The State is relying on Sekgobela’s evidence to corroborate that of private security officer Christiaan Frederick Shepherd, who has already concluded his testimony in the trial-within-a-trial.
Sekgobela told the court he contacted Shepherd to conduct surveillance on two vehicles allegedly linked to the Swarts hit after receiving information they would return to an address in Kew.
He said Shepherd later reported that a white Hyundai i20 had arrived, driven by a man identified as Kekana, who was wearing a mustard-coloured top.
However, the defence mounted a sustained attack on the reliability of that identification.
Under cross-examination, Shepherd was confronted with the fact that his two police statements made no reference to the driver’s face, build or any other distinguishing features, despite his court evidence that he recognised Kekana by his facial features, bulky build and mustard-coloured top.
Defence counsel Advocate Rian Gissing put it to Shepherd that the only reasonable inference was that he never saw the driver’s face and had identified the occupant solely by his clothing.
Shepherd rejected that suggestion.
“Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean that is not the case.”
When pressed on why those details were omitted from his two statements, he conceded: “It’s a mistake on my behalf that I did not include describing his face.”
The defence also highlighted inconsistencies in Shepherd’s description of the top worn by the driver, saying his evidence shifted from a shirt, to a long-sleeved top, to what he later described as a tracksuit top.
Kekana has denied he was the driver of the Hyundai i20 and maintains he was at his residence at the time of the incident.
Never miss a major story. Get breaking news and the latest developments from South Africa and beyond as they happen.
Get the whole picture 💡
Take a look at the topic timeline for all related articles.
Trending News
- 15 minutes ago
- 1 hour ago
- 2 hours ago
- 2 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 4 hours ago
- 4 hours ago
- 15 hours ago
More in Local
Your Tuesday top stories | Gauteng school spots, JSC awaits Ramaphosa’s call on Mbenenge & Mokwele charges withdrawal
- Top stories
South Africans have another chance to register to vote this weekend
IEC targets disinformation with proposed new code of conduct
