Iuze Mukube
Kevin Matthew Cloete, who stands accused of the murder of his stepfather, has lodged a section 174 application under the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) to have the case against him dismissed, claiming the State has failed to present sufficient evidence to justify continuing the trial.
The 33-year-old Keetmanshoop resident is in court for allegedly stabbing his stepfather, Deon Bobeje, in the chest during a violent confrontation on 27 February 2021 in Kronlein.
Cloete, who pleaded not guilty to the murder charge before Judge Philanda Christiaan, gave a hefty plea explanation detailing that he acted in self-defence after being attacked by Bobeje.
In his application, Cloete’s defence counsel, Hendrik van Zyl, argued that the evidence led by the State has been insufficient to establish a prima facie case of murder, thereby warranting a discharge in terms of section 174 of the CPA.
He stated the State has failed to disprove Cloete’s version that he was defending himself and that the incident itself lacks any credible direct eyewitness testimony from the State, leaving a significant gap in their case.
The State, represented by Ian Malumani, had closed its case after presenting testimony from three key witnesses including the first witness, Lee-Rooi Glen Engelbrecht, who described witnessing the altercation between Cloete and Bobeje.
Engelbrecht stated that Cloete had punched and threatened to kill his stepfather before retreating into the house and returning with a knife. He claimed Cloete then stabbed Bobeje once in the chest during the scuffle.
However, Van Zyl was adamant the witness account by Engelbrecht was riddled with inconsistencies and that his evidence to the matter is not only uncorroborated but is contradicted by the second witness, hence rendering his testimony unreliable and untrustworthy.
He stated such profound inconsistencies undermine the accuracy of his account to an extent that no reasonable court, acting carefully, could rely on it to convict the accused.
Consequently, the State has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused is entitled to a discharge at this stage.
Furthermore, he pointed out that although the deceased’s knife was found at the scene, the accused’s knife was missing and that none of the State’s witnesses could explain this disappearance; despite claiming they saw the accused fetch it from the shack.
He argued that this unexplained absence, coupled with the inability of any State witness to account for it, further weakens the prosecution’s case and casts doubt on their version of events, especially regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident and their attempt to disprove the claim of self-defence.
The State opposed the accused’s section 174 application, arguing that it should be dismissed. It submitted that a discharge under this provision can only be considered if there is no evidence on the main charge, and that if evidence exists that may support a competent verdict, the court should not grant a discharge on the main count.
Malumani argued that the witnesses consistently maintained that the accused was never attacked by the deceased, and that at no point did Bobeje wield a weapon towards Cloete.
Judge Christiaan is expected to deliver her ruling today.