‘Audio recording is real evidence’: State in Senzo Meyiwa trial insists expert isn’t needed

There is no need to call an expert to testify about an audio recording of an accused allegedly confessing to his involvement in Senzo Meyiwa‘s murder, the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has heard.

The trial-within-a-trial resumed on Thursday to hear arguments on the admissibility of the recording of Bongani Ntanzi’s confession.

The state wants to have the alleged confession statements of Ntanzi and his co-accused, Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya accepted as evidence in the main trial.

The request has been objected to by the defence.

‘Real evidence’

The Citizen previously reported that Magistrate Vivian Cronje, who took down Ntanzi’s confession in June 2020, had recorded her entire interview with the suspect, including the completion of the pro forma and the actual confession statement.

The state had initially planned not to lead evidence on the pro forma part of the recording, but changed its tune on Wednesday and now want the audio to be admitted as evidence.

Presenting his head of arguments on Thursday, state prosecutor George Baloyi told the court the recording would provide more detail of Ntanzi’s confession than it was reflected in the pro forma.

“The state seeks to tender this recording as evidence. We mention that the parties and the accused were afforded an opportunity to listen to the recording over a period of two days.

ALSO READ: Senzo Meyiwa trial: Accused contradicts defence, claims no police torture

“The state seeks to introduce the evidence to supplement the pro forma completed by Magistrate Cronje insofar as certain details might not appear on the pro forma, but contained in the recording on the basis that the recording is an electronic version of the pro forma,” he said.

Baloyi said the state’s request was not in conflict with the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica) because there is “no room to argue that Ntanzi’s privacy was infringed”.

The prosecutor pointed out that Cronje indicated the recording was not meant for official use, but made out of practice to safeguard herself.

“He was in front of a magistrate, making a statement in terms of Section 217 [of the Criminal Procedure Act] and all the magistrate did was to keep a record of those proceedings.”

Watch the trial:

Baloyi also said the recording was relevant because the court needed to listen to it to determine whether Ntanzi made the statement and whether he did so freely – and voluntarily.

He argued that the recording was admissible because it was “real evidence”.

“Real evidence is an object which upon proper identification becomes of itself real evidence such as a knife, a photograph or voice recording as in the current instance,” he said.

No need for an expert

Baloyi further reminded the court that the trial-within-a-trial was still ongoing, saying the state was “at liberty” to lead evidence on the recording.

The prosecutor also highlighted that the court can revisit the admissibility of the recording should further evidence be brought up later in the trial.

“The accused has been afforded the protection of such evidence being lead in a trial-within-a-trial … bearing in mind that a ruling on admissibility in trial-within-a-trial is interlocutory and may be reviewed at the end of the trial in light of later evidence.”

READ MORE: Cop says Senzo Meyiwa murder suspect’s confession wasn’t recorded

Quizzed by Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng on the need of an expert to authenticate the recording, Baloyi argued that there would not be a need for such.

“All that needs to happen is that the hard drive of [Cronje’s laptop] is retrieved, a mirror image is then made available to court. We don’t need an expert,” the prosecutor said.

Baloyi insisted the court cannot rule on the admissibility without listening to the recording.

“It is prudent that the recording be listened to and it will put any doubt as to what transpired on the day in question out of the way.”