logo
Key witness in Joshlin Smith trial seeks indemnity: What is a Section 204 witness?

Key witness in Joshlin Smith trial seeks indemnity: What is a Section 204 witness?

IOL News3 days ago
Laurentia Lombaard was a Section 204 witness in the Joshlin Smith Trial.
Image: Armand Hough/Independent Newspapers
Laurentia Lombaard, the key witness in the Joshlin Smith trial, has this week asked the court to grant her indemnity following her explosive testimonies that led to the guilty conviction of three people.
The highly publicised trial made international headlines.
The six-year-old green-eyed girl disappeared from Saldanha Bay on February 19, 2024. The search for her continues to date.
Joshlin's mother, Kelly Smith, received a life sentence for her role in the child's disappearance.
Kelly, her boyfriend Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis, and Steveno van Rhyn each received life sentences for trafficking in persons and 10 years for kidnapping.
It was Lombaard's startling testimony that Kelly had received R20,000 to sell Joshlin to a sangoma that sent shockwaves through the community.
But despite her testimony, Lombaard, who became a Section 204 witness for the State, was not automatically released from facing criminal charges.
Lombaard was initially arrested and charged alongside the trio.
In October 2024, Lombaard decided to turn State witness.
But what is a Section 204 witness?
Speaking to IOL, Associate Lecturer in the Department of Criminal Justice and Procedure at the Law Faculty of the University of the Western Cape (UWC), Tlholo Lehlekiso, answers the questions.
Jacquen Appollis, Steveno van Rhyn and Kelly Smith were sentenced in May.
Image: Robin-Lee Francke/IOL
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
What is a Section 204 witness?
'A Section 204 witness is someone who took part in a crime but is called by the State to testify against others involved. In giving that testimony, they may have to admit their own role in the offence. In return, if the court finds that they answered all questions frankly and honestly, they can be granted indemnity, meaning that they cannot be prosecuted for that specific offence,' Lehlekiso said.
She said Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act exists to make it possible for the State to use 'insider' evidence from accomplices to secure convictions against other offenders.
Lehlekiso said the courts have demonstrated it is essentially a trade-off: the State gets crucial testimony and the witness gets protection from prosecution, provided that the witness tells the truth.
When would the State opt for a Section 204 witness?
'The State would opt to use this mechanism when an accomplice's inside knowledge is crucial to proving the case, typically in organised crime, corruption, or gang-related cases. Sometimes, the only way to expose the full picture of a crime is to have someone who was a part of the crime explain what happened.
'Before questioning begins, the prosecutor must tell the court that the witness will have to give self-incriminating answers and must specify the offence involved. The court then explains the witness's obligations and rights, including that the witness must answer all questions honestly and that truthful testimony can lead to indemnity,' Lehlekiso said.
What outcomes are there usually for Section 204 witnesses?
Lehlekiso said there are two main possible outcomes:
- Granted indemnity: 'At the end of the trial (courts have found that it is irregular to give the indemnity before the end of the case), the court decides whether the witness's evidence was frank, honest, and complete. If so, the witness is discharged from prosecution for the offence in question,' she said.
- No indemnity: 'If the court believes the witness lied, withheld information, or gave unsatisfactory evidence, the protection falls away and they can be prosecuted.'
Are most Section 204 witnesses granted indemnity?
'Most are granted indemnity because prosecutors typically choose witnesses they believe will cooperate and tell the truth. But it's not automatic: the decision to grant indemnity rests with the court after hearing all the evidence,' Lehlekiso said.
She said, the law is clear: a Section 204 witness is not expected to tailor evidence to suit the State. They are only expected to give frank and honest answers.
'Early promises of indemnity are discouraged because they can prejudice the trial. Importantly, the protection is earned through credibility and not given as a reward for helping the prosecution's case,' Lehlekiso added.
It is also important to note that Section 204 and Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act (deals with plea and sentence agreements) involve potentially implicating individuals. Section 204 specifically focuses on securing testimony through indemnity, while Section 105A focuses on plea bargains.
Judge Nathan Erasmus is expected to deliver judgment soon.
robin.francke@iol.co.za
IOL
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Twins denied bail in Durban court for the murder of Prasa manager Jacob Khoaele
Twins denied bail in Durban court for the murder of Prasa manager Jacob Khoaele

IOL News

time14 hours ago

  • IOL News

Twins denied bail in Durban court for the murder of Prasa manager Jacob Khoaele

The Durban Magistrate's Court has refused bail for twins accused of killing a Prasa boss. Image: File Twin brothers, who are accused of killing Jacob Khoaele, the regional manager of Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa), over a tender, had their bail application denied by the Durban Magistrate's Court on Friday afternoon. The court found that the twins failed to provide exceptional circumstances warranting their release. Khoaele was shot dead on January 22, 2025, at La Lucia, while returning from his grandchild's school meeting. Vukani Mchunu, Vukile Mchunu, Sandile Sakhile Ngcobo, and Mthandeni Cele are charged with his murder. On Friday, the twins, Vukani and Vukile, applied for bail while Ngcobo and Cele decided to abandon it. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading In their application, the twins from Ngonyameni in Mlazi said they are 35 years old and co-own a company, Masoloma Trading. Their lawyer, Musawenkosi Mkhize, said the twins are married, with Vukani having six children and Vukile having five. He said they also co-own a property worth R700,000 and cars, which include a Ford Ranger bakkie and a Mercedes-Benz. They both stated that they are breadwinners who earn approximately R35,000 a month. He said their employees were not paid their salaries due to their incarceration, and that is why they should get bail. Mkhize said it was an exceptional circumstance that his clients were running a company. Additionally, he said his clients were traditional healers who also ran a church. Mkhize said his clients should get bail because the State has a weak case against them. 'How are the two applicants linked? The incident occurred around January this year. The number of months has lapsed, arrests were only made in July,' he said. Mkhize said, judging by what the investigating officer is saying in his affidavit, the State relied on one witness, Shange. As he was arguing, Magistrate Siyanda Mlaba asked Mkhize to tell him about the exceptional circumstances of his clients. Senior State prosecutor, Calvin Govender, said it is the onus of the applicants to prove that they have exceptional circumstances, and they have failed to do so. He reminded the court that this was a bail application and that all evidence would be led during the trial. Govender said the police wanted to get their ducks in a row before making an arrest. 'That is why there was a delay,' he explained. He submitted that the State is of the view that there would be interference with the witnesses should the twins get bail. He said the previous manager from Prasa had to resign because of the twins, who wanted to be paid for work that Prasa was not satisfied with. He said Khoale paid with his life because he also refused to pay the twins for work that Prasa was not satisfied with. 'Everyone at Prasa is afraid of the applicants due to the known fact that they threatened their colleague and killed the other,' Govender added. Delivering his ruling, Magistrate Mlaba reminded that the bail was under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. He said the accused were facing serious allegations, and further emphasised that this was not a trial but a bail application. Mlaba criticised Mkhize, saying that he said a lot of things but failed to tell the court why his clients should get bail. 'I remember asking him to hit the nail in the hand. I even asked him the definition of exceptional circumstances. But the attorney was not giving what I was expecting. I ended up just keeping quiet,' he said. He said the worst part was that there was no alternative address for the twins should they receive bail. He said the defence failed to tell the court those exceptional circumstances. The matter has been postponed to September 29 for further investigation.

Former attorney accused of theft, fraud released on R10,000 bail
Former attorney accused of theft, fraud released on R10,000 bail

TimesLIVE

time14 hours ago

  • TimesLIVE

Former attorney accused of theft, fraud released on R10,000 bail

Former attorney Catherine Wilheminah Papenfus appeared in the Johannesburg specialised commercial crimes court on Thursday on theft and fraud charges. Papenfus, 54, was arrested in Hermanus in the Western Cape on Saturday and was released on bail of R10,000. Between September 2010 and July 2013, Papenfus, who was an admitted attorney and conveyancer, allegedly received instructions from clients for legal assistance. 'The clients, intending to purchase properties, paid money into the attorney's trust account,' Hawks spokesperson W/O Thatohatsi Mavimbela said. 'However the suspect failed to pay the sellers and did not refund the clients.' When the clients failed to trace the attorney they lodged complaints with the Fidelity Fund for a refund and Papenfus was struck off the roll of attorneys. Her case was postponed to September 16.

Safa boss Danny Jordaan's fight to ditch fraud charges stalled by NPA changes
Safa boss Danny Jordaan's fight to ditch fraud charges stalled by NPA changes

The Citizen

time14 hours ago

  • The Citizen

Safa boss Danny Jordaan's fight to ditch fraud charges stalled by NPA changes

Jordaan is accused of misusing R1.3 million from Safa for his personal benefit. A decision on South African Football Association (Safa) president Danny Jordaan's bid to have his fraud charges dropped has not yet been made, with the case postponed for further proceedings. On Friday, Jordaan, Safa chief financial officer (CFO) Gronie Hluyo, and businessman Trevor Neethling made a brief appearance before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court in Palm Ridge, Gauteng. The trio face charges of conspiracy to commit fraud, theft, and fraud, and are each out on R20 000 bail. Danny Jordaan seeks withdrawal of fraud charges State prosecutor Moagi Malebati told the court that no decision had been reached on all the accused's representations to have their charges withdrawn. He explained that a leadership change within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had caused delays. 'The unfortunate part is that he left office before he could make a decision and sign off on his decision. 'We could not have the decision made as there was no DPP appointed,' Malebati said, referring to Johannesburg Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Andrew Chauke, who was recently suspended by President Cyril Ramaphosa. ALSO READ: Safa boss Danny Jordaan's lawyer stays after state's application fails Chauke has temporarily been replaced by former Northern Cape DPP Livingston Mzukisi Sakata. Sakata will assumed office on 1 September, according to NPA regional spokesperson Phindi Mjonodwane. Jordaan and Hluyo have also lodged a review application challenging a previous ruling that dismissed their section 342A applications to have the case struck off the roll. Additionally, they are contesting the Hawks' 8 March 2024 search and seizure at Safa's offices, seeking a court order declaring the search unlawful. Gronie Hluyo (L), Trevor Neethling (C) and Danny Jordaan appear at Palm Ridge Magistrate's Court n 15 August 2025. Picture: Gallo Images / OJ Koloti Jordaan and Hluyo are also challenging arrest warrants issued on 4 April 2024, alleging that the investigating officer withheld crucial information when applying for them. They further want authorities held in contempt of court for taking them into custody a day before the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria was set to hear their interdict application to prevent their arrest. Malebati confirmed that the outcome of the review application remains pending as the high court has yet to set a hearing date. 'Thieves and fraudsters' Defence lawyer Victor Nkwashu, representing Jordaan and Hluyo, argued that his clients' arrests had caused serious reputational harm to his clients and to Safa. 'The executives of Safa are rendered as thieves and fraudsters internationally. 'The question is what is the prejudice that the state will suffer if this matter is removed from the roll whilst they vindicate their names in the high court? 'Because if not, they will come and vindicate their names before this court. If the state succeeds, we'll be back here. It was not difficult to find them,' he said. The case has been postponed to 12 September. Jordaan was arrested on 15 November 2024 for allegedly misusing R1.3 million from Safa for his personal benefit. Meanwhile, Hluyo and Neethling are alleged to have enabled the misappropriation. NOW READ: Embarrassment for Safa as they can't pay salaries on time

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store