Meyiwa trial becomes a courtroom spectacle without justice

The Senzo Meyiwa murder trial continues to teeter between comedy and tragedy at the High Court in Pretoria.

National icon Meyiwa was murdered in cold blood in front of a number of witnesses in 2014.

The resultant legal circus being screened on national television lately at the moment is leaving viewers with many lingering unanswered questions.

The spectacle that started with the initial presiding officer, Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela, seems to have found its way under the current presiding officer, Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng.

If ever there was a case where the interests of justice, logic, common sense and Solomonic wisdom yearned – if not screamed – for the trial to start afresh (de novo) before a new judge, and for the five accused persons to be each represented by separate counsel, it is the Meyiwa murder trial.

There is a lot that has been said and done in that courtroom in the full glare of news television cameras that dictate that this trial starts afresh before another judge.

ALSO READ: ‘No proper investigation was done’: Defence frustrated over missing evidence in Senzo Meyiwa murder trial

So far, the trial has not showcased the machinations of our justice system in action in a favourable light. One has witnessed theatrics and conduct unbecoming from the Bench and the Bar itself.

Some rulings from the Bench and unsalutary comments have been made.

Not all within the Bench have the necessary acumen, temperament, patience, diligence, forensic skills and tact to restrain themselves from vying for attention to win the Oscar performance for the best actor of the show.

It is not the duty of the Bench to upstage any of the legal representatives appearing before it. After all, legal representatives are creatures of instructions, no matter how ridiculous the legal mandate seems to the listening spectators.

The palpable bias from the Bench leaning towards the prosecution has emboldened some counsel to even threaten to quit, while the state keeps on making objections on issues where the court should exercise latitude for cross-examination.

Potential conflict of interest, in itself, is sufficient for a discerning court to insist on separate defence representation. Here in this case you have two of the accused persons having made some self-incriminating admissions and confessions implicating their co-accused person.

ALSO READ: Senzo Meyiwa murder trial postponed as defence seeks more evidence from state

Is that not in itself real prejudice and well-grounded conflict of interest?

The problem in this case is that the Bench and the Bar seem to be enjoying the news television cameras too much, at the detrimental expense of the fairness of the trial to both the prosecution and defence.

Unfortunately, the Meyiwa murder trial will be remembered for the many wrong things that went down instead of solving one of the most unfortunate tragedies that befell a former goalkeeper and captain of our national team.

To those versed in superstition and conjecture, it is as if the trial itself is jinxed.

I rest my case.