Magistrate Jacob Mamabolo had his work cut out for him during Wednesday’s (July 22) proceedings in the Malalane Periodical Court, where the investigating officer in the Zietta Janse van Rensburg case testified.

The suspended Malalane attorney stands accused of fraud, forgery and uttering and has pleaded not guilty to all charges against her.

On more than one occasion, Mamabolo had to intervene and address the defence attorney, Marco Lamberti, about his line of questioning and advise him not to lecture investigating officer Sergeant Eketsane Maile, but to question him.

It started early in the proceedings when senior state prosecutor Tobie Steyn was introducing his witness and Lamberti interrupted. Steyn objected and said it was getting difficult to execute his duties with the continuous interruptions.

Investigation details emerge

Maile has 17 years of experience as an investigating officer and told the court that the complainant in the case, Rita van den Berg, saw him in June 2023 to open a case after she had received a settlement agreement bearing her signature, which she claimed had been falsified. She named two suspects, Grant Taylor and Janse van Rensburg, and Maile then contacted Janse van Rensburg to obtain a warning statement. She agreed to come and see him.

READ MORE: Defence attorney accuses Lowvelder of ‘contempt’ in Malalane court

Maile testified that he followed protocol and explained her rights and the nature of the investigation, which was alleged fraud and included the falsification of signatures.

He said that he wanted to present her with the settlement agreement, which is central to the investigation, but that she said it was unnecessary as she was already aware of it. She offered to write her own statement.

The statement reflects that Janse van Rensburg drafted a settlement agreement for her client, Grant Taylor, and sent it to him. She allegedly received a signed copy in return. Taylor was the party with whom Van den Berg was in dispute.

Dispute over document origins

Maile testified that he asked Janse van Rensburg for a copy of the agreement and saw that it did not contain any signatures.

READ MORE: Attorney testifies about allegedly forged documents in Zietta Janse van Rensburg trial

Steyn presented several exhibits to Maile, which included emails between Van den Berg and her attorney at the time, Schalk de Waal.

Maile said he presented the agreement in question to De Waal, which – according to the print-outs – reflected that its origins were with De Waal. He immediately denied knowing anything about it.

Steyn informed Maile that Janse van Rensburg’s version was that a representative from De Waal’s office had sent the agreement to her and she merely forwarded it to Taylor. Steyn questioned Maile on whether Janse van Rensburg had ever communicated this version to him, and Maile said no.

According to Maile, Janse van Rensburg never asked him to investigate her claim that the settlement agreement had originated from De Waal’s office. Nor did she open a case or ask the police to investigate that version of events.

Cross-examination tensions

Lamberti’s cross-examination started with a line of questioning about perjury and whether Maile knew what it was. He wanted to know whether Maile knew the full contents of his docket, as he had testified that he did. Lamberti then asked him why he had not divulged that a Sergeant Mkhatswa also took a statement from Janse van Rensburg while Maile was on leave.

Maile said Mkhatswa was the branch commander and oversaw all cases and therefore was involved in the case.

Lamberti repeatedly told Maile that he did not know the contents of the statements and further did not have full knowledge of the docket, which Maile denied.

READ MORE: Fraud trial begins for suspended Malalane attorney

Mamabolo advised Lamberti that it was not necessary to continue the line of questioning as he (the magistrate) saw and noticed everything and everyone in court. He said Lamberti would have the opportunity at a later stage to argue the point to the court.

Digital evidence disputed

The cross-examination then focused on Maile’s knowledge of electronic data and how the originator of emails can be identified, and Maile confirmed that he had not previously investigated a case of this nature.

Lamberti told Maile he needed knowledge of the law he was investigating and that scientific proof would be needed to determine the origin of the emails and documents.

Maile agreed that he had no formal training in cyberlaw or cyber investigations and was not a handwriting analyst. Mamabolo addressed Lamberti twice during his questioning and advised him again that his line of questioning had a tone of lecturing.

The court adjourned for a late lunch at 14:45 and returned at 15:30, only for Lamberti to indicate that he was not going to continue with cross-examination. Before lunch, Steyn proposed a postponement as there would be only 30 minutes left upon return to finalise questioning. Lamberti opposed it.

The case was postponed until October 12, and Lamberti indicated to the court that it would provide Janse van Rensburg time to raise funds for the continuation of the trial.

Attorney criticises media conduct in Facebook posts

Meanwhile, after Monday’s (July 20) delay, during which the focus turned to Lowvelder’s reporting and taking of photos, Lamberti took to Facebook on Tuesday morning. He posted on his practice’s page, Lamberti Attorneys, and in other Facebook groups:

Until proceedings ended on Wednesday afternoon, no security was visible at court, and Lamberti, Janse van Rensburg and her father travelled together to and from court in the same vehicle.

In a follow-up post early on Wednesday morning, Lamberti further posted:

Read original posts on Facebook here.