South Africa 23.7.2015 06:00 am

Krejcir drug trial ends

Radovan Krejcir appears ahead of court proceedings, 21 July 2015, at the South Gauteng High Court, in the Johannesburg CBD, for the final arguments of the case. Krejcir is facing charges of attempted murder, kidnapping and torture of Bhekithemba Lukhele. Picture: Alaister Russell

Radovan Krejcir appears ahead of court proceedings, 21 July 2015, at the South Gauteng High Court, in the Johannesburg CBD, for the final arguments of the case. Krejcir is facing charges of attempted murder, kidnapping and torture of Bhekithemba Lukhele. Picture: Alaister Russell

Attempted murder accused Radovan Krejcir and his five co-accused will have to wait until August 24 to hear their fate.

Krejcir, Sandton businessman Desai Luphondo, former East Rand Organised Crime Unit former warrant officers Samuel “Saddam” Maropeng, George Nthoroane and Jan Mofokeng, and Siboniso Miya were charged with the kidnapping, assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm and attempted murder of Bheki Lukhele in June 2013.

Luphondo and Krejcir face additional charges of dealing in drugs.

This past week the State, and Krejcir and Luphondo’s defence team presented their closing arguments and yesterday it was the turn of Maropeng, Nthoroane, Mofokeng, and Miya.

The State has claimed the four accused were involved in the kidnapping and subsequent torture of Lukhele by Krejcir, who allegedly poured boiling water over Lukhele’s head in an effort to extract information from him regarding a shipment of drugs which went missing.

Not so, said Advocate Johan Spangengburg on behalf of his four clients.

“As far as the charge of attempted murder is concerned, the State’s own case gainsays attempted murder,” said Spangenberg. “The purpose of kidnapping Lukhele was to obtain information from him. Killing him would have defeated that purpose.”

Spangenberg noted when it came to identification, none of his clients had been pointed out in an identification parade.

“It is common cause that none of the witnesses knew accused four to six before the aforesaid incident, that no identification parades were held, and therefore, the State is relying on so-called dock identification to prove its case,” he noted.

“The State is burdened by our Courts criticism of such identifications. Identity parades not only test a witnesses reliability, but also his credibility.”

Spangenberg also used cellphone tower positioning to dispute the State claims of his clients’ involvement.

Closing his case, Spangenberg said, “[Lead investigator] Captain Ramuhala made a staring comment when it was put to him that an identification parade would have refitted the accused to wit: “… I am an investigator…I should want to win the case, not acquit the accused.’ His investigate as been true to this point.”

The State and defence teams have until Friday to make any additional submissions in support of their cases in writing.

 

08

today in print