Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa, Maverick News

Closing arguments in Joshlin Smith trial highlight flaws and contradictions in witness testimony

Closing arguments in Joshlin Smith trial highlight flaws and contradictions in witness testimony
Vincent Cruywagen
By Vincent Cruywagen
29 Apr 2025
Facebook
0
The State’s prayer for the conviction of the three accused in the Joshlin Smith kidnapping and human trafficking case is based on the premises that Racquel Smith, better known as Kelly and Joshlin’s mother, the alleged mastermind, intended to sell her child in August 2023, that there was an agreement between the accused, they agreed to keep quiet, and that they had reasonable knowledge that Joshlin was sold for the purpose of exploitation.

On Tuesday, 29 April 2025, State prosecutor advocate Zelda Swanepoel, in the State’s closing arguments, contended that the Western Cape Division of the High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay should convict the accused of Trafficking in Persons (TIP) and kidnapping.

If Judge Nathan Eramus finds Smith and her co-accused, Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn, to be guilty they will face life in prison.

Critical to the State’s case is the weight, reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the evidence of State witness Laurentia Lombaard. Initially, she was accused number four before she turned State witness and testified against her friends. 

During the trial, which began on Monday, 3 March 2025, the testimony and evidence of Lombaard was riddled with contradictions. This is the basis for the defence counsel’s arguments that the State has no evidence against its clients, who should therefore be acquitted.

Read more: Joshlin kidnap trial — the State’s case against Kelly Smith, Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn

Despite these discrepancies in the State’s submission, Swanpoel said: “There is so much detail contained in the statement of Lombaard, such as the date of the planned discussion on Sunday, 18 February 2024, the amount Joshlin was allegedly sold for (R20,000) and for which it was paid.

“This was corroborated by Appollis, who mentioned in his confession about the discussion, the R20,000, the purpose of the money was for the exchange of Joshlin. This is the green line for reliability.”

According to Swanepoel, it can be accepted that this is the first case of its kind being prosecuted in South Africa, based on the victim being a child who has still not been found.

The trial is regarded as a test case and the decision herein is of utmost importance for the creation of sound jurisprudence in South Africa.

“Trafficking in persons is indeed a heinous crime and is often referred to as modern-day slavery. It is almost unthinkable that there should be a need for the creation of offence of selling a child. For the reasonable man it should sound rather bizarre,” she told the court. 

Background


Smith, her boyfriend Appollis, also known as Boeta, and Van Rhyn face charges stemming from Joshlin’s disappearance on 19 February 2024 from the Middelpos informal settlement in Saldanha Bay. 

The three, who have pleaded not guilty, have denied the allegations against them. The State alleges that the accused “sold, delivered or exchanged” Joshlin, a Grade 1 pupil at Diazville Primary, for money.

Smith’s warning statement, read into the record on 22 April, provided a timeline of the day Joshlin went missing. She didn’t describe Joshlin’s possible whereabouts and the statement is inconsistent with the evidence before the court.

Appollis and Van Rhyn appeared to have implicated themselves when they said Joshlin was taken to a supposed sangoma on the day she went missing. Judge Erasmus ruled that the accused’s confessions in the trial were admissible and could be used as evidence against them.

The trio have also chosen to remain silent, deciding to neither take the stand nor call any witnesses in their defence, thereby closing the case against them.

Read more: The Kelly Smith story – from promising student to charged with selling her daughter

Failure to testify ‘wrong decision’


Swanepoel concentrated her arguments on the accused’s decision not to testify or invite any witnesses to the stand, a decision that could come back to hurt them.

The State referred to case of State vs Boesak 2001 (1) SACR 1 CC, specifically paragraph 24 thereof, which the State contends is crucial to this case, which says that an accused person has the right to remain silent, but:

The fact that an accused person is under no obligation to testify does not mean that there are no consequences attaching to a decision to remain silent during the trial. If there is evidence calling for an answer, and an accused person chooses to remain silent in the face of such evidence, a court may well be entitled to conclude that the evidence is sufficient in the absence of an explanation to prove the guilt of the accused. Whether such a conclusion is justified will depend on the weight of the evidence. 

Read more: Accused in Joshlin Smith trial decline to take stand or call witnesses

The State, Swanepoel added, “submits that the accused had in fact a case to answer when they decided not to testify; it was an informed decision and it might have been the wrong one under the circumstances, and it is further the State’s submission that it was the wrong decision to make.

“The only evidence before court is the State case, in the absence of anything rebutting it,” Swanepole argued.

Timeline corroborates Lombaard’s version


The chronology of the State’s case outlines the entire process leading up to Joshlin’s alleged human trafficking, beginning in August 2023 with Nico Steven Coetzee, a general worker and evangelist, entering the witness box and ending with the statements taken in the early hours of March 5, 2024.

It is the State’s argument that the evidence of Coetzee is the most important corroboration of Lombaard’s evidence.

“The narrative Smith told him in August 2023 includes the plan, the date, the detail, the amount of money and the result. It would have been in Middelpos and Saldanha,” Swanepoel told the court.

It is also the State’s contention that Appollis and Van Rhyn did not join in the search of Joshlin on the evening of 19 February 2024, which demonstrates that they knew what happened to Joshlin and that a search was a futile exercise.

According to Swanepoel, Van Rhyn was the first to speculate about Joshlin’s possible sale to a sangoma for muti. This strengthens the State’s case that Smith was protecting her boyfriend Appollis, as she may have known he would reveal what they had done.

“Smith was therefore also protecting her own interest by protecting Appollis and speaking on his behalf,” the State contends.

The R20,000 that Joshlin was reportedly exchanged for was cited first by Coetzee, then by Appollis in his confession, and last by Lombaard, exemplifying the thread of evidence.

Furthermore, in the trial-within-trial, when he and Appollis claimed they sold Joshlin to a sangoma for R20,000, Van Rhyn alleged he returned to Makalima (allegedly the sangoma) and requested R5,000.

Given these factors, the State contends that they were part of the plan and agreement struck between the parties, as alleged by Lombaard.

Read more: Confessions in Joshlin Smith trial can be used as evidence, judge rules

Lombaard testified ‘frankly and honestly’


Swanepoel admitted there are contradictions in Lombaard’s first confession but emphasised her ultimate statement made in October 2024, and said the testimony was very similar.

The State also submitted that Lombaard testified “frankly and honestly” and should be discharged from prosecution.

However, Judge Erasmus didn’t want to engage in this argument, stating that once he had made his factual findings and findings on credibility and reliability, it was an issue that the court would revisit.

Inferences to be drawn


In its closing arguments,the State said that when all the evidence was considered, the following inferences were the only ones that could be drawn:

  1. That Smith planned to sell Joshlin as early as August 2023.

  2. That there was indeed an agreement reached between the three accused and State witness Laurentia Lombaard. The agreement entailed that Joshlin be sold, and they would keep quiet and not tell anyone or the police about their plan. Hence, there was a common purpose between them.

  3. That all three accused knew or ought reasonably to have known that Joshlin was being sold for the purpose of exploitation.

  4. That all three accused and Lombaard stood to benefit financially from this transaction.


On Wednesday, 30 April, the defence will continue posing questions emanating from the State’s closing arguments in an attempt to prove that the State has no evidence against its clients. DM



Categories:

Tags: