We should let courts decide

Startling details have emerged in the murder trial of Bulelwa Ndudula at the East London High Court this week. The trial into the killing of social development chief of staff Sakhekile Ndudula, in September 2016, started on Monday and ends today.

As with most trials that involve suspected jealousy, crimes of passion or even love triangles, the Ndudula trial has generated a lot of public interest.

Judging by the commentary on social media, the public is once again playing judge and jury at the same time – deciding on the perceived innocence or guilt of Mrs Ndudula.

So far the evidence heard has come from the State’s witnesses – who include an alleged ex-lover of Bulelwa’s, a former tenant of the Ndudulas and the mother of the late Sakhekile.

What has emerged are claims that the couple were heard, by the tenant, arguing loudly and then a physical fight ensued, followed by loud bangs.

Judge Igna Stretch also heard from Warrant Officer Raul Petzer the first policeman to arrive at the scene of the murder, the Ndudula’s marital home in Cambridge. He said the gun residue had been found on Bulelwa’s hand and also blood spatter was found inside the house. The blood was found using a chemical that can detect blood even in instances where it had been wiped off surfaces – suggesting that Ndudula’s blood may have been cleaned prior to the police arriving.

All these versions are the making of an intriguing trial where the public gleefully pry into the private lives of others.

For some, following and commenting on the trial, is another form of escapism from their own realities.

Even for us as the media, such stories lend themselves to dramatic headlines and details which make for compelling reading. However we all have to be careful not to perpetuate the hackneyed trope of a socalled “black widow” or of the proverbial scorned woman.

Courts are there to test all the evidence hence we should subscribe to the principle of innocence until proven guilty. There is no denying that the Ndudulas had problems in their marriage, as most couples do.

These also involved claims of physical abuse.

But this still does not give anyone the right to conclude on the trial before it is decided by the Judge. More evidence will emerge and both versions will be tested in the court. It is not a straightforward openand-shut case as some have sought to suggest. Bulelwa has yet to take the stand and the defence still has to call its own witnesses. What we must not lose sight of is the fact that both sides, the defence and the state, are in this trial to win.

We, including this newspaper, have to be careful in how we portray and interpret the evidence being led in court. We should not get carried and allow our prejudices and biases to cloud our judgment.

Bulelwa’s innocence or guilt will be decided by the capable Judge Stretch.

The rest of us must simply wait and see.