Defence teams oppose Meyiwa trial’s next witness request for broadcast ban

Proceedings in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial were further delayed after the state’s fifth witness, who is yet to be sworn in, brought an application on Monday against the broadcasting of her testimony in visuals and sound.

It is believed that the witness, who has been described as a “public figure”, was one of the occupants in the house where Senzo Meyiwa was murdered in 2014.

Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela is still to make a judgment on how the witness will give her testimony.

Meyiwa was gunned down in what was described as a botched robbery in the presence of his then-girlfriend Kelly Khumalo, her mother Ntombi, sister Zandi, Zandi’s boyfriend Longwe Twala and Senzo’s friends Mthokozisi Thwala and Tumelo Madlala.

Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi, Mthobisi Prince Mncube, Mthokoziseni Maphisa and Sifisokuhle Nkani Ntuli are standing trial for the murder of the footballer. They have been charged with premeditated murder, attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, possession of firearms without a licence and possession of ammunition. All have pleaded not guilty.

Addressing the court when the proceedings got under way on Monday, prosecutor George Baloyi said the witness feared for her safety.

“The witness is a well-known personality, she has to perform in public from time to time, and if these proceedings are carried live, there is a possibility that the public might form a perception regarding her evidence, and when she performs live her life might then be endangered. If the proceedings are carried live it puts pressure on her, makes her uncomfortable,” he said.

Baloyi said the witness was under no circumstances prepared to give evidence if the proceedings were carried live.

“She has no objection to journalists sitting in court reporting on her testimony. The live proceedings will bring a measure of discomfort on her part, it will hinder her.

“Her evidence, compared to other witnesses, will be subject to intense scrutiny, it’s criticised and in certain social media the evidence is subjected to scorn and ridicule,” Baloyi said.

Baloyi submitted that it was in the interest of justice that she be allowed to give testimony.

He said her standpoint was if she had to testify in an open court with a live broadcast of her evidence, she might have to reconsider giving her evidence.

Baloyi reiterated the witness was not objecting to the presence of the journalist in court.

The defence counsels argued that a broadcasting blackout would have a negative impact on both the accused, whose families were following proceedings from the live stream, and the family of the deceased, among others.

All the defence lawyers made reference to conditions other witnesses gave their testimonies under, asking the court to reject the request for “special treatment”.

Asking for the application to be dismissed, Adv Zithulele Nxumalo, for Maphisa, said the application was baseless.

“We cannot be held ransom by an application of an individual,” Nxumalo said.

Adv Zandile Mshololo, for Ntuli, said the state should have been informed of this issue during trial preparation when the media application was made in court.

“Procedurally it is the duty of the state to consult with all state witnesses to ascertain issues of this nature that we are facing.

“We ought to have been informed at the beginning who would adversely be affected by the broadcasting, we have not been informed,” she said.

Mshololo accused the state of ambushing them.

However, Baloyi said the request came through on Sunday evening and that there was no opportunity to inform anyone timeously.

Mshololo argued that the safety of everyone working in the case was compromised.

She argued that the witness was not someone foreign to the media and had already subjected herself to the media by participating in various media interviews.

The attorney representing the media, Dan Rosengarten, argued in court that the witness who complained about safety had not provided evidence.

Rosengarten said the witness informing the court that she would not testify if her request was not granted, could be dismissed easily by means of a subpoena.

Making reference to certain case laws, he highlighted the importance of open justice.

Concluding, Rosengarten submitted that open justice was more than keeping the doors of the court unlocked, but that proceedings should be accessible.

As requested by the court, the state will file heads of arguments at 4pm and the defence will file answering affidavits on Tuesday at 4pm.

The matter will resume on Wednesday for continuation of trial.

TimesLIVE