Omotoso’s lawyer stops proceedings over witness ‘inconsistencies’

Proceedings in the trial of televangelist Timothy Omotoso and his two co-accused, Lusanda Sulani and Zukiswa Sitho, were brought to an unexpected halt in the High Court in Port Elizabeth on Wednesday morning.

During cross-examination of the first witness, Andisiwe Dike, which lasted about an hour and a half, Omotoso’s lawyer, Peter Daubermann, said there were inconsistencies in her statements.

Earlier Daubermann scrutinised Dike’s written statement and compared it to her testimony in court over the past two days.

When Daubermann probed the witness’ statement made on January, 25, Dike corrected the errors in the statement, eliminating the parts that she said she never made or were not properly presented.

The lawyer also pressed Dike for more details about her alleged sexual encounters with Omotoso.

“What would he say to you when the encounters took place?” Daubermann asked.

“He would not say what I must do on the bed, he would just say: ‘Come’,” said Dike.

Omotoso covered his face with his right hand throughout cross-examination and constantly shut his eyes and covered his mouth with his hand.

Dike explained: “He would ask me if I was ready for him, tell me to lock the door and come.”

Daubermann asked if there was any resistance and verbal objection during these occasions.

“You knew what would happen each time you went to his room. At no stage did you signify any displeasure during the encounters in his room. In fact, you never resisted him on any of the encounters,” he said to her.

He questioned Dike about whether the encounters were consensual, as she went to Omotoso’s room voluntarily.

Omotoso looked down as Dike discussed the encounters in more detail.

After a brief adjournment for a tea break, Daubermann called on the Hawks investigator who had taken Dike’s statement to come before court.

State prosecutor Nceba Ntelwa argued that the investigator was on the witness list and would testify in the trial in future.

Daubermann would not give in and asked the court for an adjournment so he could consult with the investigator to prove that she was given the information the witness now disputed.

Court was then adjourned until 14.00pm.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.