WINDHOEK - The man accused of the brutal rape and murder of 13-year-old Rachel Vanessa Boois in the Omdel location of Henties Bay during the period May 3 to 4, 2014 will have to wait another year to hear whether his application to be discharged for a lack of evidence is successful or not.

High Court Judge Alfred Siboleka yesterday postponed the trial of Jandre Jacques de Klerk to October 9 next year for the ruling on the section 174 application for a discharge. Section 174 application is when the defence applies for a discharge at the end of the trial and no prima facie case was established by the prosecution, not requiring him/her to answer to the charges and possibly incriminate themselves.

State-funded defence lawyer Titus Mbaeva applied for a discharge at the end of the prosecution’s case last week and informed the judge that no direct evidence links his client to the brutal rape and murder.

According to Mbaeva the evidence adduced by the prosecution is of such poor quality that no reasonable court can convict. He further said the testimonies of the state witnesses contradicted one another in material aspects and only circumstantial evidence was fabricated against his client and as such it cannot be expected from De Klerk to be placed on his defence and possibly incriminate himself.

Deputy Prosecutor General Advocate Antonia Verhoef opposed the application and argued that a prima facie case was established against De Klerk. According to her, while the case hinges on circumstantial evidence, enough was adduced during the trial for De Klerk to answer to.

With regard to the contractions in witness testimonies, Verhoef argued the inconsistencies do not play a significant role at this stage of the trial and need to be balanced with what the accused answers to evidence adduced against him.

De Klerk faces one count of murder, three counts of rape, one count of violating a dead body in addition to a count of housebreaking with intent to rape and rape.

According to the state, he raped Boois in a half-built house twice before he broke her neck and stuck a stick in her private parts.

In a plea explanation Mbaeva read out to the court after De Klerk pleaded not guilty to the charges he told the court that De Klerk denies that he was with the deceased during the time she was raped and murdered, but admitted that he had consensual intercourse with the 13-year-old a few days prior to the incident in the house of a certain Gert Maasdorp although he could not remember exactly when.

He denies that he broke the neck of the deceased or that he stuck a stick in her privates.

He further said he did not know the deceased was a minor when he had intercourse with her as she appeared “grown-up” to him and also did not know it was a crime to have intercourse with a minor.

With regard to the charge that he raped another woman after he broke into her shack during the period June 14 to 15, 2013, he said that he went to the shack with the complainant’s boyfriend to get some cigarettes and when he later returned he found the door of the shack wide open.

According to De Klerk, he then undressed himself and asked the complainant who was totally naked for intercourse, but she refused saying her boyfriend was in the vicinity. He further stated the complainant then got extremely mad at him and he dressed and left, in the process leaving his underpants behind.

He denied rape saying there is no evidence of penetration.

The state alleges it was while he was on bail on this matter that he happened on Boois and not only brutally violated her, but ended her life short by snapping her neck.

The trial continues and De Klerk remains in custody.