Mr Andelius Mukwebe and Mr Jeremano Thive stand accused of poaching a white rhino in the Nwanetsi area of the Kruger National Park in January 2013. Their attorney, Mr Daniel Mabunda, raised two questions that inspiredNelspruit Post to do some research while attending this court case.
• When can a written statement replace a witness?
Witnesses are normally summoned to appear in court in person. The case in point involved a statement from genetic expert Dr Cindy Harper of Onderstepoort’s Veterinary Genetics Laboratory on DNA obtained from the suspected poaching scene. Mabunda protested the court’s acceptance of the evidence at face value. “Genetics is not science,” he protested and said that the state had to prove that the handing in of the statement was allowed. The magistrate Mr Edward Hall explained that Section 212 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that certain facts can be proved at face value by an affidavit, subject to a number of requirements. These requirements are explained in Section 212 (4) as illustrated. Senior State Advocate Ms Isabet Erwee explained that genetics does fall within the ambit of science.
• Can dogs track humans?
The answer to this question may seem obvious, but this court case could be the case that brings South African law in alignment with this principle. Our courts follow a system in which previous decisions are followed. After evidence of tracking dogs was rejected by the South African Appellate Division in 1920, the same court left the back door open in this regard in 1986, by ruling that evidence produced by tracking dogs would be considered inadmissible unless a proper foundation for this evidence had been laid. Mabunda said that tracking dogs assisting game rangers in tracking poachers are doomed to fail. This statement was made after several state witnesses testified to the contrary. During the past two years, testimony was led about the scientific progress made in training tracking dogs from 1986 to 2015. “Your worship, presenting evidence from tracking dogs is unnecessary and it wastes the court’s time,” Mabunda said. “It causes clouding of the real issue,” he added.
Hall postponed the case to January 23 and said that the court would comment on the evidence at a later stage.
