Late Senzo Meyiwa’s childhood friend, Tumelo Madlala, has told the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria that he never saw the need to share the money he received from Netflix with the soccer star’s daughter for selling pictures of her dad.
He has told the court that he never informed Mandisa, Meyiwa’s fiancé, that he had been paid by Netflix for the pictures.
“I didn’t inform her. I didn’t see any need to do so.”
Asked by Advocate Zandile Mshololo if he had given Mandisa anything for her to support the child, Madlala responded, “No, she’s taking care of the child.”
“But after you benefitted from the father of the child, did you give a portion to the child of your best friend?” asked Mshololo.
“I don’t think I was supposed to do that. But I think it was Senzo’s family to do that.”
Madlala admitted for the first time in court on Tuesday that he couldn’t remember how much he had received from Netflix and confirmed on Wednesday that he had been paid in cash. He has also said he never shared the money with Meyiwa’s mother, retorting, “How could I share the money with someone who was not talking to me.”
Madlala told the court on Tuesday that his relationship with the Meyiwa family had become strained after his friend’s passing, saying he was not aware why that was.
Continuing under cross-examination on Wednesday morning, Madlala was painted as a person who became a traitor the moment Meyiwa died on October 26, 2014.
“You stopped being Senzo’s friend after he died,” charged Mshololo.
“That’s a lie,” Madlala responded.
Earlier, Madlala told the court he could not place, at the scene of crime, accused 5 – who is represented by Mshololo – because he had never seen him before.
“As I have already said I did not see him among the people who entered the house on that evening.”
Mshololo once again sought to imply that Madlala was under the influence of alcohol during the commission of the crime after Madlala admitted in court that he had consumed about four cans of beer before two intruders allegedly entered the house.
The state has challenged Mshololo’s continued inference that Madlala was under the influence of alcohol when he witnessed the commission of the crime, saying Madlala had indicated that even though he has consumed alcohol, he was aware of what was happening around him.
The judge says having consumed alcohol, whether he was under the influence is relative, from slightly under the influence to drinking to a stupor and that it is a matter the state should leave for argument.
The trial continues: