The first witness to take the stand at the Pretoria High Court in the Senzo Meyiwa trial was Accused No. 2 himself, Bongani Ntanzi. Accused No. 2’s representative, Mr Ramosepele, did a stellar job for his client by challenging the state’s case and exposing contradictions in the testimony of the state’s eyewitnesses, such as Tumelo Madlala (Senzo Meyiwa’s friend) and Zandile Khumalo. Khumalo testified and pointed out Accused No. 2 in court as one of the intruders who entered the Khumalo home on 26 October 2014, where Senzo Meyiwa was shot.
Mr Ramosepele began with the state’s key witness, Constable Sizwe Zungu, who testified that he was with the accused at the hostel on the day of the incident, 14 October 2014. Ramosepele discredited Zungu’s evidence by using photos downloaded from the accused’s phones. None of the photos taken on the day of the incident depict Ntanzi with either Accused No. 3, Carlos Mncube, Accused No. 4, Mthokoziseni Maphisa, or Accused No. 5, Fisokuhle Ntuli. Does this prove his version that he does not know Accused No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5?
In addition, he addressed the cellphone records that were allegedly tampered with. He pointed out a crucial issue: two cellphone numbers that the state claimed belonged to Accused No. 2 had called each other. How is that possible? Who is telling the truth between the state and Ntanzi? Another issue concerns a cellphone number the state said belonged to Accused No. 5, only for the defence to claim that it belonged to Lungisani Ndwandwe, whom they intend to call to testify regarding that number. Can the cellphone records be trusted at this point?
However, it does not end there. Ntanzi’s cellphone is shown making phone calls even at the time when he was already incarcerated. How did the phone continue to be active after his arrest? Is it not procedure for a suspect to be searched before being booked into the cells? Who was using Ntanzi’s cellphone while he was detained, and for what purpose?
Mr Ramosepele further highlighted contradictions between Tumelo Madlala and Zandile Khumalo regarding the second intruder. Zandile mentioned that during the struggle with the intruders, she could not reach the second intruder because of her height and that she passed the crutch to Tumelo, who then hit the intruder with it. However, Tumelo did not mention hitting the suspect with a crutch, but rather with his fists.
On the other hand, during an interview with Ms Steenkamp, the two witnesses could not identify the second intruder, according to an affidavit written two days after the incident. How, then, after a decade, were they able to come to court and point out Accused No. 2? Was this an act? Mr Ramosepele indicated that they would call her as a defence witness. Was this a smart move, considering how Muzi’s witnesses expressed concerns about their safety?
Drama erupted when Ramosepele addressed the DNA evidence, which allegedly cleared all five accused, according to DNA expert Mr Masetla, who testified during the state’s case. Masetla explained during his testimony that, for a positive match, all 16 regions must correspond. However, Judge Ratha and State Prosecutor Baloyi seemed reluctant to accept this explanation, which raises questions about whether they are acting intentionally or are desperate for a guilty verdict.
Afterward, the other accused’s representatives also had an opportunity to support Bongani Ntanzi by further attempting to exonerate him from the charges and to challenge the alleged confession made by him.
This concludes some of the key moments from this week’s trial at the Pretoria High Court in the Senzo Meyiwa matter. The state is expected to begin its cross-examination of Accused No. 2, Bongani Ntanzi, on Monday, 23 February 2026. How will they attempt to discredit his evidence or portray him as untruthful? Find a weekly summary and updates of the case on https://youtu.be/99py-C2JsDQ?si=G9MG7BywZ1SOmfUX
Leave a Reply