By Aphiwe Ngowapi
The last day of October could be a pivotal moment for Nomsa Seyisi, the Makhanda paramedic charged with shooting to death her cousin’s boyfriend and attempting to kill her cousin.
Last week, after the state and defence presented their closing arguments, the case was postponed until 31 October for judgment.
State advocate Jan Engelbrecht spent less than an hour outlining the state’s case, and defence advocate Charles Stamper needed only 15 minutes.
Engelbrecht told the judge: “It boils down to the way that you’re going to decide whether the accused person was a mere innocent spectator, a bystander in the crime, or whether the accused was actively involved and part and parcel of a plan of killing [Thembinkosi] Wambi, the killing of [Zukiswa] Frans, and whether the accused is guilty of robbery.”
The state submitted that the main state witness, Frans, gave a consistent account, supported by others, whereas the accused Seyisi had conflicting versions, including omissions made in her first and second police statements.
Referring to legal precedent, Engelbrecht did account for possibilities for changing recollections and the discrepancy between witnesses’ evidence. He particularly highlighted the conditions under which Frans’ first police interview took place in hospital following the traumatic ordeal.
Engelbrecht asked the court to consider the omissions in the first statement. “Because they are not contradictions as such, they are mere omissions.” The judge should consider the impact of those omissions holistically against all the other evidence before she determines the credibility or reliability of Frans, Engelbrecht said.
Highlighted accounts in question included the claim that the accused pulled Frans out of the vehicle and put her foot on their backs to check if they were dead; and how Frans got out of the vehicle on the day of the incident.
Engelbrecht alluded to numerous decisions on common purpose, and that the state’s case was a combination of direct and indirect or circumstantial evidence. According to the state, Frans’ statement was direct evidence while the connections between the accused and their work colleague Buntu Melani represented circumstantial.
This pertained to how Melani obtained Frans’ identity number and added her to an insurance policy on 24 and 25 July 2023, a month before the incident, later cancelling the policy, on 2 September 2023. Melani listed Frans as his cousin, but Frans’ evidence revealed that this was false.
When testifying, Seyisi would not concede that. Seyisi also denied having given Melani Frans’ identity number but evidence showed that she put him in contact with Nandi Cetu who proceeded to open the policy.
Seyisi attended work the day after the incident without telling anyone what happened, made no arrangements to check the well-being of the persons that were shot, made no report to the police, until the Monday when she heard the police were looking for her. Therefore, the state maintained, the circumstantial evidence lies in the conduct of her actions after the shooting occurred.
Engelbrecht said the state had established beyond reasonable doubt that Seyisi was a party to the events that caused the death of Thembinkosi Wambi and the attempted murder of Frans. “The fact remains that it was the accused who lured these two victims out of the house, on what turned out to be a falsehood.”
There was no real intent to look for Black Cat but to execute the killing. The state argued that Seyisi played an active role in the crime scene where Wambi was killed and was not an innocent bystander.
Advocate Stamper said the state failed to prove its case. The defense disagreed with the state about the case being based on direct evidence and maintained that it was based on circumstantial evidence.
Stamper submitted that every aspect, such as the issue of Melani insuring Frans, inferences are drawn by the state that Seyisi issued her cousin’s personal particulars. The defense submitted that it can never be so, because “we don’t know how Melani got hold of Frans’ identity number. Unless the court shows that there is no other probable way, then the inference can be justifiably be wrong”.
Stamper furthered that the state inferred, at the murder scene, Seyisi pulling Frans out of the vehicle and putting her foot on their backs meant she intended to kill them. “It would not be inferential if Zukiswa was saying that Nomsa then shot or killed so and so, then it would be direct,” explained Stamper.
Stamper went on further to say “Zukiswa, for many occasions under cross-examination, would not directly answer my question, there are many instances where she would say, it is Nomsa, Nomsa is a liar.”
The defense maintained that the most crucial point in the case was whether Seyisi really pulled Frans out of the car, stating that Frans could not answer which side of the vehicle she came out of to join Wambi when they were lying down.
The defense argued that if Frans was said to be “in an unstable state of mind” at the time of taking her first statement, her statement cannot be considered reliable.
Stamper asked the court to exercise caution when dealing with the evidence and that the accused can’t be found guilty. The defense argued Frans had deliberately sought to incriminate Seyisi.
He said Frans had overtime added more things to incriminate the accused.
However, Engelbrecht said: “For there to be any substance to that argument, there must be a reason on the part of Zukiswa to want to do that. It is not merely a matter of mistakes made in statements but a deliberate attempt to incrementally over time implicate the accused.”
The prosecution made the distinction that Frans and Seyisi grew up together like sisters, and have a relationship, hence Frans had no motive.
