Iuze Mukube
A State witness in the trial of a couple who are accused of murdering a NamPower engineer four years ago was on Friday accused of contradicting himself during cross-examination.
Legal Aid-instructed lawyer Mbanga Siyomunji accused warrant officer Joseph Sakaria of contradicting himself after he gave evidence in court that differed from what he had written in his official statement.
The case involves the accused couple Jorene Bezuidenhout and Muningandu Kaapama, who allegedly murdered NamPower engineer Benjamin Silombela, after a drug session and stole his belongings, including a Mercedes-Benz vehicle.
In no uncertain words, Siyomunji stated that Sakaria was “starting to sound like a broken record, on things that didn’t happen”.
He pointed out key differences between what the officer had written in his statement and in his oral testimony.
Siyomunji questioned why, in the officer’s written statement, it was recorded that Bezuidenhout told the officer the deceased was killed by Kaapama but told the court that she told him she found the “lifeless body” of the deceased.
He argued that this amounted to a confession but as it was not officially recorded in the sworn statement of the officer, it casts doubt on the credibility and reliability of the witness’s version of events.
He further pointed out that while the officer told the court Kaapama was hostile during the arrest, his statement did not record of any such event happening.
“They are made up things, and that is why the crucial information is not in your statement,” he told the officer.
He added that while the warrant officer told the court that Kaapama “was winking and making signs to Bezuidenhout”, during the time of his arrest, this crucial information was not included in the statement, which is important as it amounts to influence.
Another contradiction, Siyomunji pointed out, was that the officer testified that the sister of accused 2, Bezuidenhout, told him that “even the chicken and rice being cooked is from the deceased’s house,” but on the other hand, it was the accused person who told him so.
The lawyer further questioned why the officer failed to indicate in his statement that Kaapama attempted to escape from custody, but told the court that the accused was considered a flight risk and had to move him to another correctional facility.
He argued that escaping from lawful custody is an offence and an accused can be charged on that, but contrarily, there was no record of any charge or record that Kaapama tried to escape.
Hence, Siyomunji argued that the officer had failed to substantiate it on record, as it was merely a statement of opinion.
He further argued that the officer conducted an illegal search at the accused’s house as he did not have a search warrant.
He added that while the officer gave a testimony of a whole list of belongings of the deceased, he only listed a few in his written statement.
According to Siyomunji, these inconsistencies cast doubt on the credibility of the witness’s testimony.
He argued that the officer was giving different accounts, raising the question if his memory was failing or he was deliberately changing his evidence.
Kaapama and Bezuidenhout are charged with murdering Benjamin (41) at his Eros home.
The couple also faces charges of robbery with aggravating circumstances and defeating or obstructing the course of justice. The State alleges that the accused murdered Benjamin on 24 May 2022, stole items including a television, and his vehicle.
The matter was postponed to 29 September 2025 for the continuation of the trial. The accused remain in custody.