The trial of Pastor Timothy Omotoso and two co-accused in the Port Elizabeth High Court has been postponed until Monday next week.

Defence lawyer Peter Daubermann wants to question the police officer who took the statement from the first witness.

Andisiwe Dike’s testimony in court differed significantly from the written statement. She pointed out several inaccuracies.

Judge Irma Sachem refused to have a trial within a trial regarding the statement. The three accused are facing 97 sex-related offences.

During the cross-examination, defence advocate Peter Dauberman led first witness Andisiwe Dike to relate the testimony she had already given but going in-depth. He asked for details pertaining to the alleged sexual encounters.

Daubermann further asked her whether she did not implicitly consent to Omotoso by not showing any dislike, during some of the alleged sexual encounters.

Dike, who appeared confident as the cross-examination proceeded, answered yes to this question, after asking Daubermann to define implicit to her.

She confirmed she did not show resistance or indicate any displeasure, but says she did show discomfort. Daubermann later took the witness through her written statement.

The court heard that there were several inaccuracies in the statement that Dike made with a police captain in East London, compared to the evidence she gave in court this week.

Dike said she spoke Isixhosa to the police captain, who is also an Isixhosa speaker, when a statement, written in English, was taken. Daubermann requested a short adjournment, as he wanted to consult with the police captain who took the statement.

He said he would not be able to continue with his cross-examination, until he has consulted the relevant official. He said the statement was inadmissible. He applied for a trial within a trial, to cross-question the police official, which was immediately dismissed by the judge.

The case has been postponed to Monday, to allow Daubermann time to speak with the police official.

This video below gives a detailed summary of the witness’ cross-examination: