27 Sep 2022

Broadhust magistrate, Ms Goabaone Rammapudi-Lesedi on Monday denied the CCTV footage, which is a crucial piece of evidence in the P2.3m Turn Rite mall cash heist robbery case, to be shown to court to proof the identity of the robbers.

The magistrate made the ruling after defence lawyers, Mr Olehile Manchwe and Mr Nkosana Ngwenya objected to the prosecution’s request to have the footage played in court during the ongoing trial of Mothusi Matomela, Thapelo Lekobe, Mzwandile Mazibuko and Ntholephi Elliot Ntshalintshali.

The quartet are charged with robbing a G4S Security vehicle in October last year.

The defence lawyers argued that the state witness, Detective Superintendent Joseph Ramarea was not the competent authority to identify, tender and authenticate the footage, as he did not personally retrieve it, but witnessed it being retrieved.

In her ruling, magistrate Ms Rammapudi-Lesedi agreed that the witness was not the competent authority to tender and authenticate the footage.

She said in his evidence in chief, the witness said he observed the footage being retrieved and it was given to him in a USB memory stick, hence he was a witness of facts.

“Ramarea is not a competent witness to verify the footage,” magistrate Rammapudi-Lesedi stressed, adding that the law regarding the use of CCTV footage and electronic devices was at an infancy stage in the country.

Nonetheless, she said such evidence and recording provided real evidence and affirmation of the scene, but it could be dangerous as it can be manipulated, resulting in the incarceration of innocent citizens, if precaution was not taken.

Therefore magistrate Rammapudi-Lesedi said the court ought to subject itself to a test to safeguard the admissibility of such evidence.

The test, she said included among others, the working condition and capability of the recording device, whether the operator of the device was competent, originality of the evidence as well as presentation of the recordings.

Further, she said the CCTV operator had not yet been called to give evidence and the prosecution had not served the defence team with the operator’s statement, hence the witness might not to be called to give evidence.

“This is the witness, in view of the court, who can only verify the footage,” she added.

Furthermore, she said the state witness had not identified and tendered the USB, he said was handed to him and he used it to make CD copies.

The magistrate said the witness had also not brought the tools he used to make CD copies of the said footage, which he wanted to play in court. The magistrate thus said the court could not view the footage as the state had desired. The trial continues on November 18; December 5, 6 and 9. ENDS