Pretoria - Zandile Mshololo the legal counsel for the fifth accused in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial has launched an application in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria indicating that current trial proceedings were irregular and not according to the law.
Mshololo the legal counsel for Sifisokuhle Ntuli, started proceedings by requesting that the letter by the National Prosecuting Authority in which docket 375 was said to be dealt with only once the proceedings in docket 636 were completed, was not communicated to the defence which was irregular and unlawful.
Furthermore, although the state had indicated it did not intend to hand this document to the court because it viewed it as irrelevant, her team would plead for it to be submitted to the court as it contained evidence which pertained to the violation of the accused's constitutional right.
Her request was not opposed by the state or the legal counsel for accused one to four Thomas Thobane.
Following that Mshololo launched her application in which she submitted that it was untrue to say that docket 375 formed no part of or no bearing in the current trial before the court.
If allowed, the court heard that singer Kelly Khumalo and others in the house the night Meyiwa was killed would be called in as state witnesses.
Mshololo said her application for the special entry to be made regarding the proceedings which they deemed as irregular or not according to the law was a result of a number of reasons including that the state had failed to furnish the accused with further particulars including the content of the evidence contained in police docket 375.
That despite being aware of the existence of the second docket and its contents and evidence at the time the decision to prosecute the accused was taken, the state failed or deliberately ignored without just cause to consider the relevance of the contents of the second docket.
Mshololo said that had the accused been aware of the evidence contained in the second docket they would have not pleaded in the manner in which they did.
According to the legal counsel, the contents contained in 375 were obtained immediately after the incident occurred from the same crime scene of 636 which the applicant pleaded to on April 22.
According to the law, she said the content of evidence of 375 ought to have been disclosed to the accused before he pleaded, as the failure to provide sufficient detail amounted to a violation of the accused's constitutional right.
"As a result, the conduct of the state has rendered these proceedings not in accordance with the law. The furtherance of these proceedings is both unconstitutional and not in accordance with the law. It is common cause that the accused pleaded on April 22 and that the second docket was disclosed to the defence counsel in the middle of the cross-examination of the first witness. It is for that reason this application is before this court for the court to record an irregularity that has occurred."
"The provisions of section 317 provide that if the accused is of the view that any proceedings in connection with or during his trial before a high court is irregular or not according to the law, they may during the trial bring such an application," Mshololo explained.
In fact, Mshololo went on to explain that the second docket contained statements from sergeant Thabo Johannes Mosia, the forensic officer currently submitting evidence that contradicted the versions he was giving in the current matter.
In addition to that, she said it contained a statement of brigadier Ndlovu who had been referred to during the current trial by Mosia as the person giving him the authorities and indications and statements which were not disclosed to the defence.
Pretoria News