Farm accused await bail decision

THE FOUR men accused of a robbery on the Oberon farm outside Kimberley will this week know whether they will be granted bail on not.

The suspects, Johannes Zikalala, who was an employee on the farm, Thulani Ngwenya, Sello Molokamme and Itumeleng Sehema appeared in the Kimberley Magistrate’s court on Friday for a bail application.

They are accused of robbing the owner of the farm of a large sum of money, cellphones and firearms. The incident occured on July 15 2017 during which a 45-year-old man and his family members were robbed.

According to the affidavit of a Section 204 witness, who was also involved in the incident, the accused went to the farm and first hid in the bushes before attacking the occupants inside the house.

The witness stated that Zikalala was the mastermind behind the incident and gave the other suspects information regarding the target.

Previous testimony stated that the complainant, his daughter and mother-in-law were tied-up inside the main bedroom by the accused before they fled the scene in a white Mercedes Benz.

Zikalala was also tied up.

The legal representatives of the accused on Friday said that the State was totally reliant on the evidence from the Section 204 witness.

The legal representative of Zikalala and Sehema, Malixole Thomas, said none of the alleged stolen goods were found in the possession of Zikalala at the time of his arrest.

“No money or diamonds were found in the possession of the accused. According to the witness, applicant one (Zikalala) was given R6 000 as a reward for his involvement, however, this money was not found on him.

The applicant also does not have any previous convictions or any pending matters. He is a family man and has maintained his innocence in this matter,” said Thomas.

The court, during the four-day bail application, heard that two of the accused, Molokomme and Sehema, had a history of house robberies and one had a pending case of attempted murder against him.

Magistrate Lance Roach said things were looking especially bleak for Sehema, who was said to have been involved in the attempted murder of the Section 204 witness.

“Applicant four (Sehema) has a huge problem which involves the attempted murder of a witness. The accused had the right idea before to abandon his bail but, however, later changed his mind,” said Roach.

The legal representative of Molokamme, Louis Matlejoane argued that despite his client being suspected of playing a part in the Piet Els farm attack, no steps had been taken by authorities to charge him

“The only focus is the matter at hand. The investigating officer in this case said during the appearance of the accused on February 6, 2018 that there will be charges added to accused one, two and three. That never happened, despite the fact that the accused has been in custody all this time. If the IO wanted to add the charges, he could have done so,” said Matlejoane.

Roach reminded Matlejoane that there was a witness who took a picture of Molokamme’s vehicle which was allegedly used during the attack.

“According to the Section 204 witness, the money and goods were divided at the home of accused number three. A picture of the bakkie of the accused was also taken. The bakkie was standing next to a road close to the farm,” he said.

Matlajoane argued that this was not enough to state that Molokamme was indeed involved in the matter.

“The person who took the picture only saw a bakkie next to the road, but it was not committing an offence. It is also not clear on what day the bakkie was parked next to road,” he said.

He said there was also no evidence linking Ngwenya to the matter.

“The evidence against applicant two is not strong. The State is relying on the evidence of the Section 204 witness, who was not only involved in this offence, but in other offences as well. The Section 204 witness is implicated in more than one robbery. For applicant two to be convicted of the offence, there needs to be corroboration in the testimony of the witness.

“The court needs to treat the evidence of the witness with caution,” he said

Matlejoane said despite the fact his client was positively identified by the complainant during an identity parade, it could be a matter of mistaken identity.

“The evidence of the ID-parade should also be treated with caution due to the tendency of human error. The ID-parade was conducted almost eight months after the incident. The complainant in the matter also had an eye-operation at the time of the incident and only saw the applicant once,” Matlejoane said.

The State, represented by Advocate Edwin Malawane, urged the court not to grant the accused bail as it had a strong case against them.