Joshlin Smith judgment due Friday after defence says State failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt

1 May 2025

The accused in the Joshlin Smith kidnapping trial will learn their fate on Friday. If found guilty they face life sentences.

The counsel for Joshlin Smith’s mother, Racquel Smith, better known as Kelly, has cast doubt on the evidence of evangelist Nico Coetzee, who claimed she revealed plans for her six-year-old daughter as far back as August 2023.

Smith’s lawyer, Rinesh Sivnarain, claimed that while a conversation between Smith and Coetzee may have taken place, his evidence is extremely unlikely, and that by applying the caution rule, the court cannot accept his evidence on that basis, risking a false conviction.

This was part of the closing arguments presented on Wednesday, 30 March by Sivnarain to have his client cleared of charges of kidnapping and trafficking in persons arising from the disappearance of Joshlin from the Middelpos informal settlement in Saldanha Bay on 19 February 2024.

According to Coetzee’s evidence, heard on 12 March 2025 in the Western Cape High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay, in August 2023, Smith allegedly revealed to him her plan to sell her children.

Coetzee’s evidence is a crucial aspect of the prosecutors’ case as it supports that of State witness Laurentia Lombaard, who claims Smith told her about the plot to sell Joshlin.

Read more: Joshlin Smith’s mother ‘talked of plans for daughter to be taken months before disappearance

Closing arguments were also made by advocate Fanie Harmse, who represented Smith’s boyfriend, Jacquen Appollis, and lawyer Nobahle Mkabayi, who represented the couple’s friend, Steveno van Rhyn.

They implied that the State had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that there is no evidence before the court demonstrating that they unlawfully delivered Joshlin to someone.

However, in response to the points made by counsel for the accused, prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel said there is no way that Coetzee wanted to place himself in this position and testify about it, and there is no ground for arguing that it was a fabrication for the sake of fame.

The defence presented its arguments a day after the State’s closing arguments, where it contended that the court should convict the accused.

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

The three accused have pleaded not guilty. They chose to remain silent, deciding to neither take the stand nor call any witnesses in their defence, thereby closing the case against them.

Coetzee’s evidence in question

Sivnarain, Smith’s counsel, focused his arguments on the evidence of Lombaard and Coetzee. Coetzee had only met Smith on a few occasions and prior to seeing her in August 2023 stated that he had last seen Smith in 2016. They were not friends but did know each other.

“I submit that it would be strange for Smith to say what he claims she said to him, especially since he is not well known to her and there is no relationship or trust between them,” Sivnarain argued.

Sivnarain also pointed out that no statement had been taken from Coetzee until September 2024.

“In court, Coetzee told he was quite specific about what was said to him, but I submit what he said was not what was told to him.

“A lot of time had elapsed since the incident occurred. It attracted a lot of publicity and attention and he was definitely made aware of the allegations and stories that were floating around regarding this incident,” said Sivnarain.

Sivnarain also slammed Lombaard’s reliability, citing contradictions in her remarks and testimony. Lombaard was friends with the accused and admitted to bonding with Smith over drugs. She was originally charged in the case but later turned State witness, testifying that Smith said she was selling Joshlin to a sangoma for R20,000, of which Lombaard would receive R1,000 for her silence.

Sivnarain reminded the court that all of the accused, including Lombaard, were under the influence of drugs when Joshlin went missing, calling into question her credibility.

“From the way events unfolded, one has to look at Lombaard, at her behaviour. One can almost say she was an opportunist. My lord, Lombaard was able to sustain her children through the assistance of Smith. Then she took advantage of that, according to her version, she was promised money by Smith and she went along with that, bearing in mind she is a mother as well.

“Lombaard stuck to her version to keep quiet because the money was promised to her and when she realised… the money is not forthcoming and there is very likelihood she was going to prison, she decided to turn and she throws her friend under the bus and decided to talk again, an opportunity to save herself,” Sivnarain told the court.

Van Rhyn, Appollis claim no involvement

Van Rhyn’s attorney, Mkabayi, claimed that the investigation into Joshlin’s disappearance did not serve justice, citing a weak investigation and a possibility of wrongful arrest.

She further argued that the State failed to argue its case beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no evidence that her client unlawfully and intentionally deprived Joshlin of her freedom.

“There is no evidence in court that Van Rhyn delivered anyone for any sum. My learned colleagues failed to discharge the onus on this court. They are pleading with this court to convict my client on speculation, drawn based on evidence from a State witness,” she argued.

Mkabayi also indicated that claims of an alleged meeting on 18 February 2024, where the plot to sell Joshlin was discussed, were false and baseless.

“I will argue that the meeting, the plan, the discussion are unfounded and baseless, and the State cannot cry common purpose without first proving the elements of the main charges without reasonable doubt. There is no proof my client delivered Joshlin,” she added.

Harmse, for Appollis, argued that Lombaard’s evidence was largely discredited. He said his client was not part of, nor involved in, the preparation or delivery of Joshlin.

Evidence ‘screams out’ for Kelly to have spoken

Prosecutor Swanepoel pointed out that Lombaard suggested Smith should tell the police what she did. And she wasn’t the only one who made such a comment.

“My lord, we also remember that it was Captain Wesley Lombard and Sergeant Dawid Fortuin’s evidence that both Appollis and Van Rhyn did exactly the same thing. They also said, ‘Kelly you know what you did, tell the police what you did’.

“So we got three people in this planned agreement that do exactly the same thing. They all point the fingers to Miss Smith,” Swanepoel argued.

Swanepoel conceded that there was criticism of Lombaard’s evidence, but said the State was not solely relying on her evidence but aspects where it was corroborated by other witnesses, including Coetzee.

“I don’t think there can be any criticism against him and his evidence wasn’t really challenged. And he was corroborated.”

Judge Nathan Erasmus noted a number of comments that witnesses attributed to Smith that she hadn’t challenged by taking the stand. He noted in particular that Smith allegedly told a police officer after Joshlin’s disappearance that “My child, Joshlin, has made me famous”.

Swanepoel said: “I think it screams out if the court has to consider all of those little pieces of evidence, behaviour, the number of times Smith told a number of different people ‘that my child Joshlin has made me famous’ – it screams out that she needs to come out and tell the court what happened, but she doesn’t.”

The three accused will learn their fate on Friday, 2 May 2025, when Judge Erasmus will hand down judgment. DM

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa

Coetzee’s evidence in question

Van Rhyn, Appollis claim no involvement

Evidence ‘screams out’ for Kelly to have spoken