After having listened to the unauthorised recording of the confession by one of the accused men on trial for the murder of Senzo Meyiwa, the State has made a U-turn asking the court to allow the recording as evidence.
During Tuesday’s proceedings of the trial-within-a-trial, State witness, Magistrate Vivien Cronje said she had made a recording of the interview and confession she took from the second accused Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi.
Cronje, a reliever at the Vosloorus Magistrate’s Court, informed the court that she often recorded matters dealt with outside of court for her protection and safety reasons.
The court ordered the defence counsels of the five men on trial for the October 2014 murder of the (former) Bafana Bafana and Orlando Pirates goalkeeper, to listen to the three-hour audio recording even though the State indicated that it did not intend to make use of it.
As proceedings resumed yesterday, State advocate George Baloyi submitted an application requesting the court to allow the audio to be admitted and form part of the evidential material before the court.
This was as Baloyi explained that after having listened to the recording, that certain aspects were contained in the audio which did not form part of the exhibit of the pro forma completed.
“Although the State initially indicated that it will not use the recording, yesterday we all had an opportunity to listen to the recording of the deposition of the confession and after comparing it to exhibit JJ, there are certain aspects that are not contained in the exhibit which appear in the recording which in our submission, are important to determine whether the statement in question was made voluntarily.”
Baloyi said the recording should be allowed as per the regulation of interception of communication and provision of communication-related information Act, in particular, Section 4 provided that any person other than a law-enforcement officer may intercept any communication if he/she was a party to the communication unless such person intercepted such communication for purposes of committing an offence.
“We therefore submit that the magistrate was entitled to record the deposition of this confession as she was a party to the communication even if she did not inform the parties. All that is required is that the person making the recording may only need to be a part thereto.”
The State’s submission was challenged by all of the defence counsels for the change of heart as they alleged they had not been afforded time to prepare adequate submissions or to consult further with the accused.
As a result, the court did not commence with the cross-examination of Cronje to allow defence counsels time to prepare concerning the audio.
The matter was as a result postponed to tomorrow, as advocate Thulani Mngomezulu who joined advocate Sipho Ramosepele as the defence for the first and second accused would not be available today.