Malema, trial for assault on Ndlozi: ‘You had no right to deny them entry’, a lawyer tells the police

EFF leader Julius Malema and MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi appear in Randburg Magistrates Court.

• The lawyer representing Julius Malema and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi says that the police officer who accuses them of assault is misleading the court about the turn of events.
• While the policeman says that Malema’s vehicle did not have a visible permit, the lawyer says that is not true, according to the video images.
• A longer version of the images was played in court on Thursday.

---

EFF leader Julius Malema and EFF deputy Mbuyiseni Ndlozi’s lawyer, lawyer Laurence Hodes, discussed aspects of the testimony and statements of a police officer in the case of assault by politicians in court of Randburg Magistrates.

Lieutenant Colonel Johannes Jacobus Venter will testify in the case of assault on politicians on Thursday.

The two are alleged to have assaulted Venter at the Fourways Memorial Cemetery on April 14, 2018 at the funeral of fighting stalwart Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.

The police officer, who is attached to the Presidential Protective Services, testified in court that Malema had refused to walk to the cemetery after having stopped his vehicle at the entrance to the cemetery.

He stated that the vehicle Malema was driving did not have permission to enter the cemetery.

Venter said Malema and Ndlozi pushed and pushed him until he lost his balance.

The officer also told the court that Malema’s vehicle was not part of the main convoy that had arrived earlier, adding that he also did not have a visible permit.

The convoy included vehicles carrying the Mandela family, the president, former and current heads of state, as well as ministers.

But Hodes told the witness that his version was false and that Malema’s vehicle was indeed part of the convoy.

When asked what kind of permits were used, Venter said it was a photographic credential.

“I want to tell them that if they had clearance, they had no right to deny them entry,” Hodes said.

Venter said the vehicles that were part of the convoy did not have permits, so he did not check them. But when Hodes asked why he looked for a “visible” permit on Malema’s vehicle specifically, the officer said it was because he only arrived after the convoy.

The witness said that to his knowledge the vehicles were only allowed to the stadium and they were informed of the specific vehicles that would have proceeded to the cemetery.

The police officer said that even if Malema’s car had a permit, it would still have prevented him from entering because he was not part of the convoy.

READ HERE | ‘No white man will stop me’ – police tell day’s court that EFF leaders allegedly assaulted him

Hodes said the SABC footage on YouTube showed a much larger convoy than what Venter was telling the court.

But Venter made no comment.

Missing parts in the officer’s statement

He also told Venter that there were several white cars in the convoy that he did not mention in his testimony. Venter said that he had forgotten about those vehicles in his statement.

Venter said he was not counting the number of vehicles that entered.

“I already asked you: you had decided that you will not leave this vehicle in the cemetery.

He said his instruction was that the family, heads of state, president and vice president, as well as ministers, would attend the funeral in the cemetery.

“Why were you looking for a permit if I hadn’t helped you get into the facility anyway?” Hodes asked.

He told Venter that he would ask the court for an adverse inference against him because he seemed to be changing and fabricating his version of the turn of events.

Hodes accused Venter of lying to the court by changing the chain of events in his testimony.

Video images displayed

Video footage showing various vehicles entering the gate was then viewed and Hodes questioned Venter as to who was in the vehicles.

The police officer could not identify who exactly was driving the cars and if they were allowed inside. He said they were part of the convoy and that is why they had entered.

In the images, Hodes pointed out that from the dashboard there was an item, which he said was a permit. But Venter told him that the article looked like a reflection.

SEE | ‘Police are pressured every day,’ Malema says as assault trial postponed

The footage seen was a much longer version of the one Venter presented to the court and was challenged by the state on Wednesday.

“So what was the purpose of seeking accreditation because that was the substance of his testimony?

“You are lying to this court and I will prove it. Your evidence in chief … and you testified yesterday of your own free will, you told this court that after the vehicles entered the Vito Mercedes they arrived at the door” . .

“Then of your own free will you said that you didn’t see any visible permission. Why were you looking for a permission if it hadn’t helped you get in or not?”

Cheat the court

Hodes accused Venter of misleading the court in his testimony compared to what the day’s footage showed.

The attorney said, “I am going to ask the court to make an adverse inference against you for changing your evidence in that way. I am going to ask the court to determine that you are fabricating your evidence on the fly because your version has changed so much.

After seeing the video showing various vehicles entering the cemetery, Hodes told Venter that he had detained Malema even though he was part of the convoy.

The footage showed Venter standing in front of the vehicle a couple of seconds after the arrival of what he described as the “convoy”, which is why Hodes told him that Malema’s car was in the convoy, contradicting the claim of the that had just arrived. after.

The trial continues.