Defence casts doubt on Laurentia Lombaard’s testimony in Joshlin Smith trial

The contradictions between Laurentia Lombaard’s March 2024 confession and her Section 204 statement nine months later could cast doubt on her entire testimony.

The discrepancies were a source of contention at the conclusion of the second week of the Joshlin Smith trial, as the defence punched holes in her evidence, casting doubt on her reliability and implying that she was lying.

Joshlin Smith, who went missing on 19 February 2024. (image: Supplied)

The trial began on 3 March 2025 at the Western Cape High Court, sitting in the Saldanha Bay Multipurpose Centre, and is being heard before Judge Nathan Erasmus.

When Lombaard was first arrested, in March 2024, she submitted a confession to a “Captain Cilliers”. Seven months later, in October 2024, the investigating officer put on record her Section 204 statement – her evidence against her co-accused in a bid to win indemnity – which differs significantly from her confession.

The statements are littered with discrepancies. Lombaard claims that when she confessed in March, she was terrified, confused, did not trust Cilliers, had been using drugs for a week before being taken in for questioning by police and was not of sober mind.

However, seven months later, she stated that she was of sound mind and remembered the events that occurred between 18 February 2024 and the following day, 19 February, when Joshlin vanished, with greater clarity.

However, the defence is using these discrepancies to attack Lombaard’s credibility, saying she was high on drugs and that she cannot be trusted. Lombaard’s drug abuse became apparent when on the first day of her cross-examination she told the court that she often took drugs two or three times a day in the period before Joshlin’s disappearance.

In court last week, she said she didn’t mention everything in her March 2024 statement and wasn’t fully conscious.

Several legal experts, who did not want to be named, told Daily Maverick that the factors cited by Lombaard for making a confession were sufficient grounds for the court to sweep her confession aside.

“The fact that Lombaard was not sober-minded and a heavy drug user days before making the confession is the crucial element for the court to consider the admissibility of the confession,” said one expert.

Joshlin’s mother Racquel Smith, also known as Kelly, listens to the cross-examination of State witness Laurentia Lombaard. (Photo: Supplied)

Joshlin’s mother Racquel Smith, known as Kelly, her boyfriend “Boeta” Appollis, and their friend Steveno van Rhyn face charges of human trafficking for exploitation and kidnapping following Joshlin’s disappearance from the Middelpos informal settlement in Saldanha Bay. 

The State contends that they “sold, delivered or exchanged” Joshlin and the court heard evidence from Lombaard that Kelly allegedly sold Joshlin for R20,000 to a sangoma.

Read more: Shocking testimony unveils Kelly Smith’s alleged plot to sell six-year-old daughter Joshlin to a sangoma

The three have pleaded not guilty.

Lombaard is the same co-accused who was initially in the dock with the trio, but turned against them when she abandoned her bail application in the Vredenburg Magistrates’ Court in March 2024.

Statements riddled with inconsistencies

Last week, advocate Fanie Harmse, appearing for Jacquen Appollis, highlighted the inconsistencies in Lombaard’s first confession and later statement, starting with Sunday, 18 February 2024.

One of the most prominent issues raised was the R20,000 that a sangoma allegedly paid Kelly and how it would be divided among individuals allegedly involved in Joshlin’s human trafficking case. Lombaard was intended to receive R1,000, Van Rhyn R1,200, and the difference was shared by Kelly and Appollis. Lombaard claimed she did not receive a penny.

The three accused in the disappearance of Joshlin Smith are, from left, Jacquen Appollis, Steveno van Rhyn and Joshlin’s mother Racquel Smith, better known as Kelly. (Photo: Vincent Cruywagen)

Lombaard maintained that the “money discussion” took place on 18 February 2024, a day before Joshlin disappeared.

However, the confession was recorded on video, and Erasmus told Lombaard that on the footage she told the police captain that the discussion took place on Monday, 19 February 2024.

“Did you lie to Captain Cilliers?” Judge Erasmus inquired.

“Yes,” Lombaard replied.

Other inconsistencies pointed out were:

1. In her section 204 statement, Lombaard claimed that Kelly at one point had a knife and intended to stab Boeta Appollis, although this was not included in her confession. Lombaard said that she understood only afterwards that she had phrased it incorrectly.

Harmse also addressed Lombaard: the footage showed that every sentence Cilliers composed, as well as the statement’s conclusion, was read aloud to her. He also stressed that Lombaard had two opportunities to correct any errors. He asked why she didn’t correct any errors and she replied that it was her mistake.

2. In her statement, Lombaard states that on Sunday, 18 February 2024, Kelly and Joshlin left their home on foot. Kelly supposedly crossed the canal; Lombaard followed, but decided to stand behind large rocks and watch Kelly and Joshlin wait for the VW Polo, which the sangoma allegedly arrived in to meet Kelly and Joshlin the day before the six-year-old’s disappearance.

However, in her confession, she said that Appollis stood on the pavement, while Kelly went alone to the sangoma, without Joshlin.

3. Lombaard gave different accounts of what Kelly reportedly received from the sangoma. In her statement, Lombard claimed she witnessed the sangoma give Kelly something, while her confession mentioned money. She had no explanation for the disparity.

Harmse also put it to Lombaard that the first reason she gave the court for these discrepancies was that she appeared to be under the influence of drugs or affected by drugs. She later claimed the reason she didn’t tell the police the full story was because she didn’t trust Captain Cilliers.

Judge Erasmus also underlined that Lombaard agreed with the questions and answers in that statement. One of the questions she was asked was whether she wanted to exercise her constitutional rights and remain silent, to which she answered, “Yes I want to share everything I know with mevrou and the truth (Ja ek wil als wat ek weet met mevrou deel en die waarheid).”

According to Erasmus, Lombaard also suggested to the court after her arrest that she appeared to be in her right mind, as evidenced by the statement, and that she made the statement of her own free will.

When asked why she didn’t inform the court after her arrest that she wasn’t in her right mind, she said, “I was scared.”

Harmse further argued that his client, Appollis, denied that Kelly said people would come to collect Joshlin at 2pm. Lombaard disputed this claim, stating that Appollis had indeed heard that people would come to fetch Joshlin around 2pm and that she needed to be ready.

“The time when Kelly told Boeta, I was there when she said it,” she insisted.

A video recording of the confession Lombaard made in March 2024 was also handed in as an exhibit.

Erasmus said, “I was able to view the video on Wednesday night. I tried to observe demeanour and I didn’t have the written confession with me when I viewed it. I could not help when I looked at the video on how you look very different.”

The judge said that Lombaard also told the court that prior to her arrest, she had been using a lot of drugs. “When you were arrested, remember the date, 13 March, you were taken in by police and processing started on 15 March.

“It was two days after you were taken in when you made the confession on 15 March.”

The judge further asked Lombaard when the last time was that she had used drugs, and how much. She replied that it had been when she and her boyfriend Ayanda fled in the days after Joshlin’s disappearance. Lombaard claimed she took drugs the entire week before her arrest on 13 March 2024.

“I want to tell the witness and counsel why I asked these questions at this stage. Because, I have noticed, more particularly when I looked at the video, the changes in the witness and now I know the timeline between drug use, arrest, being incarcerated for seven months up to the second statement. The purpose of the questions I ultimately will have is to make an evaluation of the quality of the evidence,” Erasmus said.

Lombaard health concern

On Wednesday, 19 March 2025, Lombaard broke down under Harmse’s cross-examination about the inconsistencies in her two statements. 

She was back in the stand on Thursday, 20 March 2025. According to Erasmus, a sick note was handed in by a general practitioner who recorded what happened to the witness and that she was able to continue on Thursday.

“I will read out into the record the medical condition and if counsel want to see the certificate, the court will provide them with a copy and have a look at it in private,” said Erasmus.

“The witness has a legal representative, who is not here, and wants it first to be raised with her counsel as these are private and confidential information relating to her medical condition. There is nothing in the docket that deals with the merits of the evidence.”

Video recording

Concluding the second week of the trial, the judge noted that Lombaard presented the court with a long account from 18 February to 19 February, and then of the days after 20 February 2024.

Erasmus went on to summarise the plans to allegedly sell Joshlin.

“I’m going back to the video recording of the confession statement. I want to have another look at the weekend, but that is not how I recall the story, from the statement to Captain Cilliers,” Erasmus indicated.

Erasmus wanted to know if Lombaard did tell Captain Cilliers that Kelly had left and came back during the course of Monday, 19 February, to then deliver Joshlin to the VW Polo, allegedly belonging to the sangoma, which Lombaard confirmed.

She confirmed she had been at Kelly’s house on Monday and there was some discussion about the money before Kelly went to pack Joshlin’s clothes.

Erasmus noted, “You enquired from her where she was going, whereupon she said to you in the following words, ‘moenie vir my kak vra nie’ (it’s not your business). All this happened in the sequence of you arriving at Kelly’s place on the Monday morning.

“Then still on Monday, in that sequence, Kelly left with Joshlin [for] the car, and Kelly went to work and only returned around 5pm. Is this how you told the story to Cilliers?”

On the proceedings of Monday 24 March 2025, the judge suggested the prosecution, who cannot consult with her because she is under cross-examination, give Lombaard all the statements so she could study their contents by Monday.

The trial continues on Monday, 24 March 2025. DM