WATCH: Defence challenges Elie Challita’s evidence during Hughes sentencing
The defence challenges the father's evidence, while the State objects to questions about confidential Children’s Court records.
The sentencing proceedings of convicted child rapist and murderer Amber-Lee Hughes continued in the Johannesburg High Court on August 28, where the father of four-year-old Nada-Jane Challita faced an intense cross-examination over his relationship with the child’s mother, school records and events leading up to the murder.
The proceedings followed Elie Challita’s emotional testimony on August 27, during which he described becoming Nada-Jane’s primary caregiver, read messages exchanged with Hughes and became emotional while reading an Arabic letter written after his daughter’s death.
On Friday, Hughes’ defence attorney, Marius Bouwer, challenged several aspects of Challita’s evidence, while State advocate Rolene Barnard repeatedly objected to questions she argued strayed into confidential Children’s Court proceedings.
Hughes remained in the dock throughout the proceedings, while her father, Howard Hughes, sat in the public gallery behind his daughter.
Dispute over Children’s Court records
One of the most heated exchanges centred on documents relating to previous Children’s Court proceedings involving Challita and Nada-Jane’s mother.
Bouwer questioned Challita about whether there had been a custody battle between the parents, suggesting his evidence differed from what was contained in Children’s Court records.
Challita maintained there was no fight between him and the child’s mother during the Germiston Children’s Court proceedings.
He acknowledged that they had disagreements but insisted they worked together in the child’s best interests.
“We were disagreeing, but we weren’t fighting,” Challita told the court.
He further claimed that the presiding Children’s Court judge had commended both parents for approaching the matter cooperatively.
Judge questions legality of documents
The questioning prompted Judge Richard Mkhabela to intervene after it emerged that the defence appeared to have access to Children’s Court records.
The judge questioned whether any court order had authorised access to the confidential file.
“No court has made an order that the file should be uplifted,” Mkhabela said while questioning the defence about possession of the records.
Barnard argued that Section 66 of the Children’s Act protects the confidentiality of Children’s Court proceedings and that neither the State nor the defence could rely on such material without proper authorisation.
Bouwer maintained that he was entitled to test Challita’s credibility, arguing that the questioning related to evidence already raised during testimony.
The judge cautioned the defence against venturing too deeply into confidential Children’s Court matters.
Questions over bruises and school records
Earlier in the cross-examination, Bouwer questioned Challita about whether he had ever received complaints regarding Nada-Jane’s condition while she attended school.
Challita recalled one occasion when the child had a bruise after falling in a garden.
Barnard objected, arguing that the defence was taking Challita’s earlier evidence out of context because his previous testimony referred specifically to complaints of child neglect rather than ordinary childhood injuries.
The court also heard that Challita had destroyed school diary notes after reading them.
Relationship with Hughes under scrutiny
The defence further questioned Challita about his relationship with Hughes while she worked at Nada-Jane’s school.
He confirmed that he had helped Hughes buy medication after she told him about her mental health struggles, although he could not say whether she always took it.
Challita also disputed Hughes’ version of how their relationship began, insisting she had willingly given him her phone number.
When asked about video calls between Nada-Jane and her mother, Challita acknowledged that, during the early stages of his relationship with Hughes, he had asked her to stay out of view during some calls.
He said they were still uncertain about where the relationship was headed and saw no reason to disclose it at the time.
Proceedings continue
The cross-examination is expected to continue as Hughes’ sentencing proceedings resume, with the court still hearing evidence before determining an appropriate sentence.
WATCH: Elie reads Amber’s 2022 message before emotional Arabic letter in sentencing proceedings
