Cape High Court. Photo by Simone Haysom.
30 April 2014
The trial of Social Justice Coalition leader Angy Peter and her husband Isaac Mbadu is continuing in the Cape High Court. Peter and Mbadu are on trial, with Azola Dayimani and Christopher Dina, for the murder by ‘necklacing’ of Rowan du Preez (also known as Siphiwo Mbevu) in October 2012.
See also:
- Trial that’s more important than Pistorius
- Peter trial: Defence questions how burnt witness could have fingered accused
Last week two emergency medical professionals gave testimony about their interaction with Rowan Du Preez in the ambulance on his way to Groote Schuur, as part of the State’s case in the trial of the four accused. A senior SAPs member has also been questioned about irregularities in the investigation of the murder and the manner in which allegations of corruption against Blue Downs police officers were pursued.
Ambulance assistant Marta Pieterse testified that Du Preez was unable to answer questions put to him but did call out ‘Give me water’ and curse words. Pieterse claims she was told only the name ‘Rowan’ by the police officer she met at the scene.
Mohammed Abdullah, the paramedic who joined the ambulance en route to the hospital, also described how the deceased shouted out requests for water and swore, but was unable to answer simple questions. Du Preez’s verbal and non-verbal responses were in response to pain stimuli, such as a protracted attempt to insert an IV drip.
Du Preez died the next day.
The defence argues that these testimonies cast doubt on Du Preez’s ability to provide lucid and extended answers to the enquires posed to him by police officers on the scene. Du Preez is alleged to have made a dying declaration that he had been assaulted and set on fire by Peter and Mbadu.
Colonel Riaan Redelinghuys, the Head of Detectives, also testified on Thursday 24 and Tuesday 29 April. Redelinghuys is being questioned about two matters – the investigation into Du Preez’s murder and the investigation into Peter’s complaint about a crime intelligence officer called Andile Tshicila. The defence argues that Redelinghuys was presented with prima facie evidence that Tshicila had been involved in a crime but did not follow the correct procedure for investigating it. This evidence included statements from Peter and Mbadu,and a statement from another community member, about telephone conversations with Tshicila in which he had allegedly implicated himself in the purchase of stolen goods from Du Preez. These calls took place on speaker phone in front of large groups of Mfuleni residents, and the mobile phones were also available for corroboration.
The defence argues this provides evidence of a motive for certain police officers to frame Peter.
Redelinghuys said he had ordered a departmental inquiry into the matter and had not charged Tshicila or informed IPID. Tshicila had been treated as a witness and not a suspect in the investigation, he said, and he was satisfied with Tshicila’s explanation that his interactions with Du Preez arose out of Du Preez’s function as a police informer.
Though he had not read it, Redelinghuys confirmed that Blue Downs station had received a petition with the signatures of 60 signatures members of the community requesting that this matter, and other examples of police misconduct, be investigated.
Redelinghuys is still being cross examined, but cannot appear in court again until the second week of May because of duty requirements, including serving during the elections.