Rape of 11-year-old: Closing arguments presented in bail hearing
The matter will resume on June 12.
This follows the defence and the State presenting their closing arguments for the bail application.
The accused's lawyer, Frik van Rensburg, said the investigating officer's statement contains no supporting evidence and should not be relied upon.
He pointed out that the child initially denied the alleged rape when questioned by her mother, raising the question of how the court could then accept her version of events.
ALSO READ: State opposes bail as officer testifies in child rape case
'The prompting of the victim could, with all due respect, be indicative of an ulterior motive,' he said.
Van Rensburg said the child was only assisted by her mother when the statement was taken — in English, not her mother tongue.
State prosecutor Kagiso Ralethata argued that the State's case is not weak.
'The only thing outstanding is the DNA results, which could take about nine months. The victim was assessed by a doctor and no independent evidence was handed in to show that the applicant would be acquitted,' he said.
'The contentious point was the circumstantial evidence in the form of a statement from the victim's sister.
'It was highlighted that the witness is out of the country and that the investigating officer has not yet obtained her statement.
'We cannot say whether we will be able to obtain the statement. I will argue that, although the statement is important to a certain degree, it is not a crucial piece of evidence. The State can proceed without it.'
The suspect, who cannot be named to protect the child complainant, was arrested on April 22.
ALSO READ: Rape of 11-year-old: Investigating officer unsure when sibling will return to SA
At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
The South African
7 hours ago
- The South African
No bail for accused mastermind behind DJ Sumbody's murder
Katiso Molefe. Image: YouTube Screenshot via SABC News Home » No bail for accused mastermind behind DJ Sumbody's murder Katiso Molefe. Image: YouTube Screenshot via SABC News Murder-accused Katiso 'KT' Molefe, charged with the killing of Oupa Sefoka, also known as DJ Sumbody, and his two bodyguards, was denied bail on Wednesday, 20 August 2025, at the Alexandra Magistrate's Court. Magistrate Reneir Boshoff delivered a 12-minute bail judgment where he listed a slew of reasons and concerns why Molefe was denied bail. Molefe is alleged to have plotted the execution-style murder the of DJ Sumbody who was killed on 22 November 22 together with his two bodyguards, Sibusiso Mokoena and Sandile Myeza. He was murdered following a performance at News Café in Woodmead, Johannesburg. It's alleged Molefe and DJ Sumbody were feuding over a multimillion-rand drug deal around the time the music producer was gunned down. Boshoff cited other pending cases and convictions against Molefe including the killing of Philip Swap in April 2024 and the pending murder case of DJ Sumbody together with three other accused. He further highlighted incidents of drug dealing and fraud committed by the accused. 'It is significant he was convicted of drug trafficking in the UK for the possession of cannabis. He was charged with fraud related to his stay in the UK. 'What is really concerning is that he used a fake passport with an alias, David Tabbor Leita. While this may have happened way back in 2004, it raises concern about what the applicant is capable of,' said Boshoff. Boshoff alluded to Molefe being a flight risk when expressing concern over the large bank deposits into Molefe's business bank account. This, he said, points to a source of income. 'The applicant suggest that the State's case against him is extremely weak and circumstantial by nature. It is true that the evidence against the applicant because of his role in the killings will be distant as he was not physically present during the (killing). The absence of direct evidence does not mean that an inference of guilt can't be deducted,' said Boshoff. The magistrate indicated that contact between Molefe and three other accused in this murder case, via WhatApp and cellphone communication formed part of the evidence in the State's case against Molefe. The magistrate further commented on the allegations by the State of Molefe paying the three accused large sums of cash following DJ Sumbody's murder. 'The cellphone records after these so-called hits between the respective accused are indeed very interesting. Accused one frantically trying to reach the applicant moments after the Sandton hit on DJ Somebody. He made no less than eight calls to the applicant,' said Boshoff. Boshoff also spoke of concerns by the State that witnesses lives may be endangered should Molefe be released on bail. This comes in the wake of messages sent via WhatsApp by Molefe to the other accused's family members when he was initially released on bail. Some of the messages suggested that Molefe could arrange his release from prison. 'Although bail was granted in the High Court regarding the case, this court is of the respectful opinion that a lot has changed since then. The current counts are of a very serious nature and can definitely increase the risk to abscond. Very important, the evidential link between the four accused persons in this case appears to have increased,' said Boshoff. According to the magistrate several facts are taken into consideration when such judgments are made. These include: the freedom of the individual, his right to be innocent until proven guilty and the interest of justice. 'There's also the statutory framework requiring that the accused must on a balance of probabilities show the existence of exceptional circumstances to permit his release on bail,' said Boshoff. In this regard, Molefe has not proven his innocence stated the magistrate. 'Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, the court makes a value judgment and finds the applicant failed to put exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail…As I highlighted there are a number of concerning aspects, not only linking the applicant to the crimes, but his circle of influence and capabilities. [Therefore], his application for bail is accordingly refused,' added Boshoff. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
