Defence’s application for acquittal turned down

MBOMBELA – The hopes of two suspects, accused of rhino poaching, of walking out of the local Magistrate’s Court as free men, were dashed when the magistrate ruled that they would not be acquitted. Their attorney also questioned evidence of dog tracking that was presented by the state.

Mr Jeremano Thive (22) and Mr Andelius Mukwebe (21) were arrested in the Nwanetsi area of the Kruger National Park (KNP) on January 19, 2013. While authorities were attending to the poaching scene of a black rhino in Tshokwane, they were alerted that another incident had taken place in the Nwanetsi area of Kruger. A white rhino carcass was found at this second scene.

Rangers traced the whereabouts of the suspects with the assistance of tracking dogs of the German Malinois breed.

Thive and Mukwebe were apprehended that day and face charges of contravening the Immigration Act, and three charges relevant to illegally entering the park and poaching.  Senior state Adv Ms Isabet Erwee closed the state’s case on Thursday.

Defence attorney Mr Daniel Mabunda questioned the admissibility of the dogs tracking the accused as evidence in light of a previous Supreme Court of Appeal judgement where it was determined that evidence of dog tracking may be considered admissible if a proper foundation for the presentation of this evidence has been lain.  Mabunda applied for acquittal of the accused on three charges. He said the state witnesses’ testimonies were not completely consistent.

Erwee listed the seven state witnesses – dog training expert Mr Henry Holtzhausen, two game rangers who may not be named, regional ranger of the KNP southern region Mr Don English and Mr Frik Rossouw and Mr Ken Maggs of Environmental Crime Investigation as well as pilot, Mr Grant Knight who testified during the trial.  Mr Juan de Beer of the Mpumalanga Tourism Agency also testified for the state. Two statements were also handed in as evidence for the state.

The magistrate, Mr Eddie Hall, took this into account and ordered that the accused would not be acquitted on Thursday. “The court must look at the evidence. If there is evidence on which a reasonable court might convict the accused, a discharge will not be granted,” he explained.  The credibility of evidence presented need not be addressed at this stage. This will only be done if the material evidence is obviously untrustworthy, which is not the case. The admissability of the dog tracking evidence will be considered at a later stage. He ruled that the case against the accused was to proceed.

Thive and Mukwebe’s trial will continue on January 23, when the argument for their case will be presented.

Read more about this case here.