Advocate Malesela Teffo, the defence lawyer for accused numbers one to four in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial, has questioned the authenticity of a jurisdiction letter signed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) head, Shamila Batohi in February 2020 for the matter to be heard in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.
Teffo argues that the matter is before the wrong court and should be heard at the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
On Monday, the trial was dominated by a postponement date.
Both the state and defence counsel for accused number 5 agreed to a postponement, while Teffo opposed it.
The trial of the five men charged with the murder of the goalkeeper has been adjourned to Tuesday morning.
Teffo says Batohi must be called to confirm that she indeed signed the documents as he argued she was off on that day.
“We are so much very doubtful, unless we can be proven otherwise. We are doubting the signature purporting to be of that of the NDPP. The only authority that can prove us wrong is a police investigation in terms of the document. We are of a strong view that she be called to the box and confirm or corroborate these documents,” explains Teffo.
Video of court proceedings:
Second docket was an internal opinion
On Monday, the court heard that a second docket was an internal opinion from a junior state advocate, and that the director of public prosecutions in Gauteng never made the decision to charge occupants who were in the house where the soccer star was shot.
This follows the decision by the defence lawyer for accused number 5, Advocate Zandile Mshololo asking for the state to explain why the persons in the docket opened in 2019 were not charged.
Mshololo halted her cross-examination to go over a second docket in the murder case which fingers Meyiwa’s girlfriend, Kelly Khumalo and six others as the suspects.
She says she can now proceed with her cross examination as the Director of Public Prosecutions in South Gauteng has given clarity.
“The alleged documents for not having any status as such was an internal opinion from a junior state advocate who was without merit,” adds Advocate Mshololo.
The video below is reporting more on the developments in court:
