[ad_1]
- The two men accused of murdering farm manager Brendin Horner requested bail.
- During the request for bail, the court heard allegations of police involvement, bribes to free one of the defendants, and death threats to a police witness.
- The defendants have argued that the State’s case is weak and based on circumstantial evidence.
What should have been a simple request for bail for the men accused of murdering Brendin Horner ended in a series of two-day discussions with allegations of police involvement, bribery and death threats to a witness.
Sekwetje Mahlamba and Sekola Matlaletsa, the men accused of Horner’s murder who were strangled to death on a farm in Paul Roux, the eastern free state, on October 1, spent another day on the dock at Senekal Magistrates Court on Tuesday.
The judicial hearing addressed the cross-examination of one of the investigating agents of the case, as well as the final arguments of the application of the bail of both defendants.
From these judicial exchanges, a series of new narratives emerged as both the state and defense teams fought for a dominant and accepted version of events.
Bribery and police involvement
Legal Aid lawyer Machini Motloung of Matlaletsa told the court that his client’s wife had allegedly been called by a police officer who offered to help him get out of custody.
According to Motloung, the unknown police officer told Matlaletsa’s wife that for 20,000 to 30,000 rand he could make sure he was released.
One of the investigating officers, Captain Gerhardus Myburgh, who was still on the stand, said this information was concerning and that Matlaletsa’s wife should alert the police so they could investigate him and trace the number from which the call was made. call.
Motloung also spent time focusing on the crime scene and the evidence found, questioning the possibility of police involvement.
READ | Brendin Horner suspects he ‘bragged about assaulting a white man on a farm’
He asked Myburgh about police involvement in stock theft syndicates, confirming that there was information that the police officers were accomplices of the unions.
Motloung then pointed out the way Horner was found, the fact that there was a knife placed in his cap that was found near his body and nothing substantial was taken.
He asked if there might have been police involvement in his murder.
Myburgh replied that if the police officers were implicated, they would be dealt with, but there was no evidence or information related to their alleged involvement.
Death threat
The court previously heard that one of the witnesses, who gave information to the police, was allegedly threatened by a relative of Matlaletsa.
Myburgh told the court that the independent witness was allegedly threatened to remain silent and stop providing information to investigators.
Apparently the witness was told that if she continued to give information to the police, she would not see December.
Myburgh added that a process was underway to place the witness in witness protection.
READ | Witness in the murder case of Brendin Horner allegedly threatened by a relative of the accused to keep silent
She later told the court that the witness was not threatened directly, but was told by someone else that the threat had been made.
During closing argument, Motloung asked the court to consider whether the story about the threat was not fabricated in an attempt to show that the defendant would interfere with witnesses if he were released on bail.
“I humbly affirm that it is so incomprehensible for an experienced investigating officer to provide such poor quality evidence,” he said.
The witness, who claimed to have received the death threat, is the same one who was allegedly sitting with the defendant in a tavern in Paul Roux when it is alleged that both Mahlamba and Matlaletsa detailed assaulting a white person on a farm before tying him to a fence post.
News24 previously reported that these details matched the crime scene, leading to their arrests.
There were two independent witnesses who allegedly overheard the defendant bragging about the crime in the tavern on the same day that Horner’s body was found.
The other witness was sitting very close to both defendants and overheard them talking about assaulting a white man on a farm.
The State recorded that the two independent witnesses did not listen to the same conversation, but rather to two different conversations at different times about the same event.
“We have two independent witnesses who testified how the defendants were immediately located in the crime,” said the prosecutor, who asked the court not to be identified.
Weak circumstantial case
Lawyers for both defendants told the court that the State’s case was weak and based solely on circumstantial evidence.
This after DNA samples taken from Horner’s bakkie could not match those of the defendant.
News24 previously reported that DNA samples collected from the bakkie, which was found about 8 miles from the crime scene, by a private investigator had been analyzed by a private laboratory.
The DNA profiles of three different men were found. Subsequently, samples were taken from the accused and compared with the profiles. The DNA of one of them did not match, while the swab of the other was defective and therefore not conclusive.
Private attorney Joseph Kgoelenya, appointed by Legal Aid for Mahlamba, said there were a myriad of issues pointing to the “desperate” nature of the evidence presented by the state.
READ | Bloodstains, witnesses: bail request gives insight into case against Brendin Horner murder defendant
Kgoelenya said there was no physical evidence from forensics or eyewitnesses linking Mahlamba to the crime.
“What the state has now is weak circumstantial evidence,” he said, even calling the evidence non-existent.
Kgoelenya added that Mahlamba was not found in possession of Horner’s wallet or cell phone and forensics on the bloodstained clothing seized from him when he was arrested were still pending.
Mahlamba claimed that the bloodstains were from a sheep that he slaughtered for a traditional festival in September.
Police followed up on this lead, but said the host of the party reported that although he knew Mahlamba, he was not at the party or killed any animals on the day in question.
Kgoelenya argued in black communities, traditional party invitations were issued and because there were so many people, the host may not have seen Mahlamba there as he would not have had to ask permission to be there or help with the killing.
Mahlamba claimed that he was with his girlfriend the night Horner was killed and did not know Matlaletsa on a personal level, other than seeing him around the municipality.
The State said that Mahlamba’s girlfriend provided an affidavit stating that the two fell asleep together, but when she woke up, he was no longer there and only returned the next morning.
Motloung said his client vehemently denied that he was involved in Horner’s murder and was with his wife all night. He added that his wife had deposed an affidavit to that effect.
READ | Blood drawn from Brendin Horner’s bakkie is from three different men, according to court
Motloung argued that the State’s case was riddled with discrepancies and limped in the absence of forensic evidence.
“I contend that in light of the latest discovery that whatever versions the applicants have submitted, it is a version that at this time cannot be shaken by the state,” he said.
The State responded, saying collectively, that the evidence collected thus far, even without the DNA evidence, showed that there was a prima facie case against the accused.
This is demonstrated by independent witnesses, who reported hearing the accused implicate themselves in the crime.
The defendants, for their part, did nothing more than deny the evidence against them without providing solid and independent evidence to prove their versions, the State said.
The ruling on the bail request will be issued on Thursday.
We know it was a long read and your time is precious. Did you know that now you can listen to articles? Subscribe to News24 to access this exciting feature and more.