Story audio is generated using AI
The credibility of a senior police officer came under intense scrutiny in the Johannesburg high court on Wednesday after the defence highlighted what it described as contradictions between his testimony and the official arrest documents used during Musa Kekana’s arrest.
Kekana, Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, his wife Tsakane Matlala, Tiego Floyd Mabusela and Nthabiseng Zama are on trial and have pleaded not guilty to 25 charges.
They include the attempted murders of actress Tebogo Thobejane and taxi boss Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni”, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud and money laundering.
Capt Phumi Sekgobela returned to the witness stand as the trial-within-a-trial continued to determine whether evidence collected during the arrests of Kekana could be admitted during the main trial.
Kekana is also an accused in the murder of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart, along with Michael Tau.
Upon searching his vehicle, firearms were allegedly found, and police ran ballistics tests which linked them to the attempted murders of Muvhango actress Thobejane as well as Sibanyoni.
During a lengthy cross-examination on Tuesday, Kekana’s lawyer, advocate Riaan Gissing, focused on a SAPS document that recorded reasons for Kekana’s arrest, arguing that it directly contradicted Sekgobela’s earlier evidence.
Reading from the document, Gissing said it reflected that Kekana had been arrested for “possession of a prohibited and unlicensed firearm and ammunition and a robbed motor vehicle”.
“So if this document is correct, then your earlier evidence is incorrect when you stated that you explained to him that you arrested him for murder,” Gissing told the captain.
Sekgobela maintained that both versions were accurate.
“This document is correct, and the evidence I gave in court is correct, one hundred percent,” he said.
Gissing pushed back, telling Sekgobela: “I put it to you that both cannot be correct, because they are in stark conflict with each other. So tell us which one is correct.”
Sekgobela replied that Gissing was “trying to confuse” him.
“At first, I explained to him that we were arresting them for murder at the time we were at the house and that the other charges then came out,” he said.
Gissing also questioned Sekgobela’s evidence on how Kekana’s constitutional rights were explained following his arrest.
After confirming that Kekana’s home language was Sepedi, Gissing asked why the accused would then seek clarification in English.
“So if he answered you, ‘My language is Sepedi,’ why would he ask you questions for clarity, it appears, in English? It appears to be improbable.”
Sekgobela responded that he had explained the rights in both languages.
He said he started in Sepedi, but wherever there was clarity in which Kekana asked in English, he replied in English.
Attention then shifted to the SAPS notice of rights document, which Gissing argued contained several inaccuracies, including the location and time it was allegedly completed.
Sekgobela admitted parts of the document were incorrect, saying he may have mistakenly recorded Bramley instead of the hospital.
“I made a mistake by writing Bramley and not the hospital,” he said.
Pressed further on where Kekana had actually signed the document, Sekgobela conceded that he could no longer remember, suggesting another member of the Tactical Response Team may have taken the document to hospital for Kekana to sign, saying it is the manner in which they help each other as team members.
However, Gissing accused him of digging himself “deeper and deeper”.
Cross-examination is expected to continue on Wednesday.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.