Joshlin Smith trial: closing arguments uncover contradictions and tensions

IOL News

29-04-2025

Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis, Steveno 'Steffie' van Rhyn and Racquel 'Kelly' Smith face kidnapping and human trafficking charges.
Image: Mandilakhe Tshwete
As the trial of Joshlin Smith edges toward its conclusion, closing arguments at the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday are poised to reveal further tensions and contradictions surrounding the shocking case.
Following an intense day of confrontation between State prosecutor Advocate Zelda Swanepoel and defence counsel Fanie Harmse, representing Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis, who is accused number one, the focus now shifts to the legal teams of Steveno van Rhyn who is accused number two and accused number three, Racquel 'Kelly' Smith.
Judges are expected to deliberate on the matter and possibly deliver a verdict by Friday.
The courtroom was filled with palpable tension as the prosecution and defence elaborated on the reliability of key State witness, Lourentia 'Renz' Lombaard, whose Section 204 testimony is central to the prosecution's case.
Initially charged alongside the accused, Lombaard turned State witness, alleging that the three individuals conspired to sell six-year-old Joshlin Smith for R20,000.
Joshlin's disappearance from her home in Middelpos, Saldanha Bay, on 19 February 2024 ignited a nationwide outcry and has left communities grappling with the dread of child exploitation.
In his rebuttal, Advocate Harmse seized upon what he termed 'material contradictions' in Lombaard's testimony.
A particular point of contention was an inconsistency regarding when Lombaard supposedly overheard a conversation between Boeta and Kelly concerning Joshlin.
While initially claiming the conversation took place on 18 February, she later revised her account to the morning of the day Joshlin vanished.
'That is a material discrepancy,' Harmse asserted, further questioning Lombaard's credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her various statements regarding the alleged abduction.
Judge Nathan Erasmus acknowledged these concerns, noting that certain inconsistencies existed within Renz's statements in contrast to the evidence provided by the defence.
'There are significant issues with consistency,' he remarked, although he pointed out that the accused had opted not to testify, limiting their ability to provide a direct contradiction of Renz's narrative.
Advocate Swanepoel remained steadfast in her position, countering the defence's claims by arguing that while minor discrepancies may exist, the essence of Renz's testimony held firm, corroborated by additional witnesses and physical evidence.
She referred to Nico Steven Coetzee's testimony, where he recalled Lombaard's disclosure of a plan to sell Joshlin back in August 2023.
Coetzee detailed the same R20,000 figure and motivations for the anticipated sale, elements that appeared to resonate throughout Lombaard's account and other evidence moments later.
Evidence presented to the court included a video from social media, wherein van Rhyn described activities on the morning Joshlin disappeared, alleging that he, Kelly, and Lombaard had been smoking mandrax.
This narrative mirrors Lombaard's version and was corroborated through multiple accounts, including van Rhyn's own statements.
As closing arguments progressed, Harmse made a point by asserting that the two primary narratives—the one put forth by Renz and an extra-judicial statement from Appollis—are incompatible and 'cannot both be true.'
Looking ahead, the courtroom is set to witness the defence strategies of van Rhyn and Kelly, who are expected to challenge the assertion by Swanepoel that they acted with shared intent and awareness of Joshlin's exploitation.
Swanepoel has portrayed the case as a calculated conspiracy driven by financial desperation and a 'toxic relationship dynamic' between Kelly and Appollis.
She believes that the contradictory accounts and refusal of the accused to testify only further indicate collective guilt, stating, 'The only reasonable inference is that Joshlin was sold for exploitation, and all three stood to benefit.'
As anticipation builds, all eyes will be on Judge Erasmus, who gears up to issue a ruling that carries profound implications—both legally and emotionally—for the community, as they await closure on this distressing case.
[email protected]