Senzo Meyiwa Trial: Accused Claims Gininda Fabricated Identification Evidence
The Senzo Meyiwa murder trial heard another direct attack on the State’s identification evidence on Tuesday, as one of the accused claimed Brigadier Bongani Gininda’s version linking him and his co-accused to the two intruders inside the Khumalo home was allegedly fabricated.
The court heard that Gininda had described the murder as a hit, alleging that accused number five was approached to recruit people to kill Meyiwa. According to the State’s narrative, accused number three and accused number two, Muzi Sibiya and Bongani Ntanzi, allegedly entered the house, while the other accused acted as lookouts outside.
During questioning, the defence focused on witness descriptions of the two men who allegedly entered the house on 26 October 2014. The accused disputed that the descriptions matched him and Ntanzi.
The court was taken through a statement attributed to Longwe Twala, in which the second suspect was described as tall, light in complexion and wearing a black hoodie. The accused argued that this description did not match Ntanzi, saying Ntanzi is dark in complexion.
He told the court that if the people inside the house had seen Ntanzi, they would have described him as dark. He then accused Gininda of allegedly concocting or fabricating the version himself.
The defence also revisited another statement by Twala, dated 25 November 2015, in which he again described two intruders. According to the statement read in court, one was tall and light in complexion, while the one with dreadlocks was short, dark in complexion and wearing a khaki jacket.
The defence argued that Twala’s descriptions were consistent with earlier statements made after the incident.
The accused agreed, telling the court that Twala was describing what he saw inside the house. He said the consistency in the descriptions showed that the version presented by Gininda did not align with the statements of witnesses who were present during the shooting.
The court also heard that the defence intended to deal with an identification parade, including forms and photographs previously admitted as exhibits.
The matter continued with the defence preparing to place further identification evidence before the court.
