The state’s next witness in the trial against the five men accused of killing former Bafana Bafana captain Senzo Meyiwa has objected to her testimony being broadcast live by the media.
Senzo Meyiwa murder trial
The murder trial resumed on Monday morning in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, with State Advocate George Baloyi informing the presiding Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela that the witness is reluctant to take the stand due to the proceedings being broadcast live.
The witness, whose name is yet to be disclosed, is said to be a public figure, according to Advocate Baloyi.
ALSO READ: Senzo Meyiwa trial: Witness denies lovers spat between Longwe Twala and Zandi Khumalo
The prosecutor said the witness has no objections to journalists being present in court, but does not want any audio or visuals of her testimony being broadcast live because she fears that she might be ridiculed and this might harm her reputation.
Advocate Baloyi asked Judge Maumela that in the “interests of justice”, the states’ application should be granted.
Advocate Zandile Mshololo, the lawyer for one of the accused men, asked for a short adjournment of proceedings in order for a legal representative of the media to be consulted. The media is likely to challenge the state’s application.
Judge Maumela granted the postponement for five minutes before he makes a ruling on the matter.
The state’s fourth witness Mthokozisi Thwala, who was present on the day Meyiwa was killed in October 2014, wrapped up his testimony last week after being on the stand for several days.
Bongani Ntanzi, Sifisokuhle Ntuli, Muzikawukhulelwa Sthemba Sibiya, Mthobisi Prince Ncube and Mthokoziseni Ziphozonke Maphisa face various charges including premeditated murder and attempted murder in connection with Meyiwa’s murder.
The footballer was gunned down in what has been described as a botched robbery at the family home of his then-lover and musician Kelly Khumalo, in Vosloorus, east of Johannesburg.
This is a developing story. More to follow.
NOW READ: Senzo Meyiwa trial: An ‘eye-catching altercation’ trips up proceedings
