Senzo Meyiwa murder accused Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi’s hopes of finding an alibi to prove he was back home for a ceremony in KwaZulu-Natal through transactions were dashed by his bank records.
The latter came to light after his defence counsel, advocate Sipho Ramosepele, attempted to object to the submission of Ntanzi’s bank records by the State.
Ramosepele objected to the bank records as he alleged that there were some transactions which Ntanzi claimed he had made in his home town of Nongoma in KZN that were not reflected in the statements.
In fact, Ntanzi further alleged that a loan he had requested from Capitec to help with some things for the ceremony that he allegedly attended back home, around the same time Meyiwa was allegedly shot and killed, were not reflected in the statements either.
State advocate George Baloyi, however, reminded the court of the provisions of section 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act which enabled Ramosepele to inspect the original of the document or entry in question and any accounting record in which such entry appeared.
Baloyi told the court that the bank statements covered the period from January 31, 2014, to December 31, 2015, while the State only wanted to highlight transactions which took place from October 25, 2014, to October 28, 2014.
The objection was also questioned by Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng as he stressed: “If it is not here then it was never made with the bank, what bank is it where you make a loan and it’s not reflected in an account, it must be in another account, this is simple accounting principles.
“Nobody can force an accused person to accept evidence if he does not want to accept it, you have a right to challenge this evidence, this section says this is prima facie evidence so you can challenge it but you can’t stop the State from leading this evidence on the basis that there is no loan depicted on this statement. You’ve got a right to subpoena Ms Brink, and you’ve got a right to request the records of your client and to contest the veracity of those records.”
The recent development was another blow to Ntanzi’s version of not being around Gauteng during the time of the murder, as on Tuesday the court heard that he could not be accounted for at his workplace at the Driefontein mine in Carletonville.
This was revealed by Hendrik Louis Mulder, a human resources manager at Sibanye Gold, who testified that Ntanzi had last reported for work on October 25, 2014, and not on October 26, 2014.
Judge Mokgoatlheng also expressed his concern about the delays in the Meyiwa murder trial following a request for a postponement by Ramosepele, the legal defence for Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya and Ntanzi.
Ramosepele requested the postponement to fully prepare for the commencement of the trial within a trial relating to the admission of confessions and pointing out statements made by Sibiya and Ntanzi.
He told the court he required a bit of time to fully consult his clients regarding the objection to the admission of the said confessions.
However, Judge Mokgoatlheng stressed that the Deputy Justice President had indicated that he was “worried” about the pace the trial was taking as there were other matters which had been stopped in place of conducting this one.
“This trial is of concern in the sense that it (Meyiwa trial) has paralysed a judge, a prosecutor and even some defence counsels, and what JP says is that there are cases that are waiting to be on the roll. So it’s not me who is saying all these things but when there is a postponement he wants to know what for.
“Everybody who knows anything about time knows that this case happened in 2014, if this case must be postponed you must say that we are dealing with a case which happened in 1902 then it must have preference over my case because mine happened in 1902,” he further explained.
The trial will resume on Friday with the trial within a trial.