South Africans detained in Zimbabwe for illegal entry face deportation
While many South Africans are pending deportation, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) says three South African men face trial in Zimbabwe on charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
Meanwhile, the ZHRC reports that a Zimbabwean court has convicted a South African woman of dealing in dangerous drugs and sentenced her to 10 years in jail.
ZHRC Chairperson Jessie Majome told IOL that officials have confirmed six men at Harare Remand Prison as South African nationals.
She said they are now ready for deportation following verification by South Africa's High Commission.
However, she said the South African diplomatic mission told Zimbabwean authorities that the elderly seventh man is not a South African citizen. As a result, officials will not deport him.
Majome said she visited the prison and found 66 foreign nationals held in the men's section.
'It is an issue of concern to the Commission because it involves a special category of people who should not be in prison,' she said.
She stressed that authorities should not treat people arrested for irregular immigration like suspects awaiting trial, even though the offence is illegal.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
State prioritises witness protection in AKA and Tibz murder case
Nomonde Zondi | Published 1 hour ago The State continues to protect its witnesses by keeping its cards close to its chest, refusing to give the defence names of the unknown additional witnesses and their statements in the murder cases of South African rapper Kiernan 'AKA' Forbes and his friend Tebello 'Tibz' Motsoane. The friends were shot dead in Florida Road, Durban, outside Wish Restaurant in February 2023. Lindokuhle Mkhwanazi, Lindani Ndimande, Siyanda Myeza, Mziwethemba Gwabeni, and Lindokuhle Lindo Ndimande are accused of the murders; additionally, they are facing 10 other charges, including attempted murder. During the pre-trial conference at the Durban High Court on Wednesday morning, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, advocate Lawrence Gcaba told the court that the State made it clear from the onset that they were not going to give the defence the names of the additional State witnesses and their statements in terms of section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 144 allows the state to withhold the names of certain witnesses it intends to call during the trial. Previously, senior prosecutor Advocate Elvis Gcweka, who is working with Gcaba on the matter, told the court that the State would lead the trial with 45 witnesses and additional witnesses. The names of the additional witnesses have been withheld for their protection. 'I was approached and informed that an application to compel the State to give the d efence the witness statements would be made. That hasn't happened,' Gcaba told the court. He said he had told the defence to make the application. Defence lawyer Advocate Jimmy Howse SC said he had mentioned the issue of the witness statements to Gcaba. The former acting director of public prosecutions, now defence counsel advocate Simphiwe Mlotshwa, said they were contemplating compelling the State to give them the witness statements. As the defence counsels wanted to engage more on this, Judge Jacqueline Henriques interjected and said these discussions should not be taking place in the presence of the media. 'I am uncomfortable with that being laid out in the public domain,' she said. She ordered both the State and defence to have a discussion about this, off record, while she stood the matter down and the gallery was cleared. The matter then returned to court, and Gcaba requested that the court make an order for the matter to be adjourned to June 19, 2026 and during this time, both parties would sort out their issues. It was also agreed between the parties that witness statements would be given to the defence six weeks before the trial starts. Judge Henriques said the presiding officer (Judge) who would be allocated to the matter would certify it is trial-ready. [email protected]
TimesLIVE
4 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Former Vuma FM presenter Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma leads anti-illegal immigration march in Maritzburg
Former Vuma FM presenter Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma has again taken a strong stance against illegal immigration, leading a march under the banner of 'March and March' in Pietermaritzburg on Tuesday. Members of the movement, which aims to raise awareness about the effect of illegal immigration in South Africa, gathered outside the Pietermaritzburg high court to demand justice for a child allegedly raped by an illegal immigrant. On Tuesday she took to social media, urging locals to support the cause. 'As March and March we are at PMB court to ask for justice for this victim, a nine-year-old who was [allegedly] raped by an illegal immigrant. If you are in PMB please JOIN US. #NoToIllegalImmigrants.' Speaking to TshisaLIVE, Jacinta says they note the Pietermaritzburg high court withdrawing the rape charge against the accused. They've instructed their attorneys to study the ruling and advise on how they can protect the rights of the minor child. 'We are deeply concerned that in most cases when such charges are withdrawn, it is due to failure by the state to properly investigate and come up with evidence that will result in a successful prosecution. Even now we don't know how many more children are at risk with so many illegal immigrants roaming our streets', she said. Jacinta has previously spoken out against what she describes as the unfair advantage foreigners have over South Africans in the job market, saying, 'foreigners take jobs intended for South Africans and often seem to enjoy more rights than citizens'. The protest in Pietermaritzburg is part of a campaign by the March and March movement, which continues to spark debate about immigration, crime and South African identity.
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Key witness in Joshlin Smith trial seeks indemnity: What is a Section 204 witness?
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. IOL
