EYEWITNESS REPORT FROM NOVEMBER 9 TRIAL SESSION
|
PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA "Thursday, November 9 was the first day of the appeal trial for Mzwakhe Mbuli. Court commenced at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6-G of the Pretoria High Court--also known as the Supreme Court--with the highly respected Judges van der Walt and Jordaan presiding. For the defense, there were Advocate Michael Hellens and Attorneys Wessie Wessels and Leslie Sedibe representing Mzwakhe Mbuli. Advocate Jennifer Miller represented the co-accused, Happy Shikwambane and Ben Masiso. The State was represented for the prosecution by Advocate van der Merwe. Proceedings up to the morning recess were gruelling, with Judge van der Walt asking tough questions to Advocate Hellens. The appeal process focuses on testing of theories and possibilities with regard to evidence in the case.
By the lunch recess, Advocate Hellens had gained a strong position, and Advocate Miller was going deeply into the problems with the case, of which there were four main areas. The problem areas include the lack of fingerprints, the lack of witnesses, sloppy police work and contradictory evidence. The defense argued it was not only important to look at what evidence existed--but also what evidence did not exist and could easily have changed the whole case, were it not for police incompetence. (The original trial was riddled with violations of procedure and protocol by police, in addition to the obviously vengeful attitude and activities toward the accused by police.) Arguments proceeded to discussion of sentencing in the case, which was prejudicial to the accused. A new law came into affect on 7 October 1998, requiring lower courts to give maximum sentences in certain types of criminal cases such as robbery. Even so, Mzwakhe Mbuli and the co-accused were arrested in October 1997, and the trying of the case began in early 1998, before this new promulgation. The fact that the accused were given maximum sentences under a law which was enacted after their case began was prejudicial to the defendants. The debate was extremely technical. By 1:00 PM, things were looking positive, and those attending for Mzwakhe Mbuli were feeling confident. Former Member of Parliament and civil rights leader Helen Suzman was in attendance. Mrs. Suzman has been a steadfast supporter of Mzwakhe Mbuli throughout his ordeal, and she offered to take the defense team to lunch. On the way out of court, photographers were snapping pictures of her like the papparazzi do, running ahead of her and just "snapping away". Mrs. Suzman's presence was clearly beneficial to the situation. She also gave a live radio interview by telephone on Khaya FM Radio from 7:45 to 8:00 AM, and she was just amazing. At 2:00 PM, the last lap of the day began, and it became clear that we would be heading for a second day of trial. The situation had shifted from what seemed to be an antagonistic attitude from the bench to one that became receptive to the defense argument. The attorney for the co-accused finished her argument, and then it was up to the State to respond. Up until then, all proceedings had been conducted in English, but then it changed over to Afrikaans. The judges fired questions at the advocate for the State in quick succession, then utilizing the defense arguments against the prosecution. The flame of hope for an acquittal for Mzwakhe Mbuli began to flicker brightly. The advocate for the prosecution presented what seemed to be a very weak argument. When the judges asked what his response was to the four problematic areas argued by the defense, he conceded that they were problematic. Despite that, he said those should be ignored, as a bag (which allegedly contained money and explosives) was found in the car shortly after the crime; he argued that should be enough. The judges did not seem impressed at all, and the entire time allotted to the presentation of the State's position did not seem to last more than twenty minutes in total. The two defense teams gave brief responses to the State's argument, and the judges declared that judgement would be handed down at 11:30 AM on Friday, 10 November. One can never really read the expressions and mannerisms of the judges, and it is a mistake to jump to conclusions, but if one was to sum up the performances of the day, the defense did very well indeed. Interested parties can tune in to South African talk radio on the Internet, such as 702 Talk Radio, which is located at www.702.co.za. This subject is likely to be firing up the airways for some time. Friday's trial session will no doubt bring a huge turnout with a heavy media presence and many well-wishers and celebrants. Khabo Mkhize, the amaZulu cultural leader who admires Mzwakhe Mbuli greatly--as Mzwakhe Mbuli also admires him--sent his imbongi (praise singer) to court. He did not sing praises at court--simply because the defense could not risk doing anything that might jeopardize Mzwakhe Mbuli's case--but on the way back to Johannesburg, he gave an awesome rendition. The praise singer had travelled all the way from Kwazulu/Natal for the trial. He also visited Mzwakhe Mbuli at Leeuwkop Maximum Security Prison recently and rendered praise for him there, and Mzwakhe was very moved by it. Perhaps tomorrow the court and people in attendance will be treated to some very special praise singing for Mzwakhe Mbuli, after the verdict people have waited and prayed for around the world is rendered." |
|
PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA "We lost the day in court, and we lost this appeal! Judge van der Walt ruled that although Mzwakhe's version of events is plausible, he still had a problem with the proximity in time from which the robbery took place to when the BMW was stopped by the police. Although the judge acknowledged problems with the case such as shoddy police investigations, no fingerprints, etc., he saw the 'time factor'--the time between the robbery of the bank and the time the bag was found in the vehicle with the accused--as an overriding factor that he felt could not be ignored. It did not seem that the problems raised by the defense--including lack of witnesses, lack of fingerprints, sloppy police work, and contradictory evidence--were adequately considered. On the contrary--it seemed clear that some of them were ignored. The judge also ruled that the thirteen-year sentence (with no consideration of time spent awaiting trial) as handed down by the lower court was correct, and he was not prepared to reduce it. When the defense asked for permission to appeal to a higher court, however, the judge immediately granted leave for the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals. The defense team found it significant that the judge immediately granted 'leave' without requiring the Defence to argue for such a request. It is believed that this indicates that the judge acknowledges that the case as sentenced is problematic and that another court may find differently. This process of appealing to the Supreme Court of Appeals is very expensive. We may need to think about ways to raise some money."
WE WILL HAVE MORE NEWS VERY SOON. WE ARE SHOCKED BY THE TURN OF EVENTS, BUT WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL MZWAKHE IS FREE. ALUTTA CONTINUA / THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES |