WATCH: ‘I spat on her’: Challita questioned over disputed altercation during Hughes’ sentencing proceedings
Nada-Jane’s father, who was her primary caregiver, faced questions about his relationship with Amber-Lee Hughes, alleged threats, pregnancy claims and previous break-ups.
The sentencing proceedings of convicted child murderer and rapist Amber-Lee Hughes continued in the Johannesburg High Court on August 28, with Nada-Jane Challita’s father, Elie Challita, facing further cross-examination by the defence.
Challita, who was Nada-Jane’s primary caregiver, was questioned extensively about his relationship with Hughes and several incidents that occurred during their relationship.
‘She never stopped’
During questioning, Challita described what he said was a pattern of Hughes begging him to take her back after major break-ups.
He said the break-ups could last for weeks, with Hughes allegedly begging him, rubbing exaggerated claims in his face and attempting to convince him to resume the relationship.
When asked about Hughes’ age at the time, Challita said he could not remember, estimating that she was 22 or 23.
Pregnancy and abortion allegations
The defence also questioned Challita about several pregnancy and abortion allegations made during the relationship.
Challita said he could not say which of the alleged pregnancies had resulted in an abortion, but claimed that money was requested from him on several occasions.
He told the court that, in his view, at least one of the pregnancies may have been genuine, but he could not identify which one.
Challita further testified that it was Hughes’ father who eventually exposed what he believed to be a lie.
According to Challita, Hughes’ father told him that money given to Hughes for an alleged abortion had instead been spent at a shopping centre, where she allegedly bought chocolate and ice cream.
Alleged threat against Nada-Jane
The court also returned to an August 2022 incident in which Challita said Hughes made a threat against his daughter.
When questioned about whether the threat had been directed at him and Nada-Jane, Challita clarified that, according to his version, Hughes directed the threat specifically at his daughter.
The defence also put to him Hughes’ version of events surrounding the incident, including an allegation that Challita had contacted her father and told him to fetch her.
Challita said he may have contacted Hughes’ father after an incident involving a knife.
He told the court that Hughes had been holding the knife and that he initially believed she was trying to stab him. He later understood that she had claimed she was trying to stab herself.
‘I spat on her’
Another part of the cross-examination focused on an earlier major break-up and allegations of physical violence.
Challita denied grabbing Hughes by the hair or engaging in a physical altercation with her.
He did, however, admit that he spat at her.
“I spat on her to show the level of disgust that I had towards her at that time,” Challita told the court.
He said he then contacted Hughes’ father and asked him to come and collect her.
Challita denied that there had been any other physical altercation between them during that incident.
He said Hughes did retaliate verbally, describing her as swearing, crying and begging him to take her back, but denied any further physical retaliation.
Police called after allegations
The defence also questioned Challita about allegations Hughes had allegedly raised with others, including the police.
Challita said he had a telephone conversation with Ms Johnston in which he explained the situation.
He testified that a police van later arrived at his home and officers asked permission to enter.
According to Challita, the police did not find anything relating to the allegations and subsequently left.
Dispute over evidence and affidavits
Challita was also questioned about messages relating to an affidavit and whether he would only use evidence that favoured his version of events.
He maintained that he had asked for the truth to be provided and said the same principle applied to everyone involved, including himself.
The defence further challenged him over his earlier testimony concerning the so-called Calvin incident.
Challita clarified that while there had been an argument, there had been no physical fight and he had not grabbed Hughes by her hair.
He said his earlier reference to “nothing happening” related to there being no physical altercation, rather than meaning that there had been no argument or other events.
WhatsApp photographs
The court also heard about photographs of Challita, Hughes and Nada-Jane.
Challita confirmed that he had posted photographs of himself and Hughes on his WhatsApp status.
He said Hughes had complained that he was not posting photographs of them together and that he subsequently posted photographs of himself, Hughes and his daughter on different occasions.
According to Challita, the posts were intended to show Hughes that he was not hiding their relationship.
Cross-examination to continue
The defence did not finish questioning Challita on August 28, despite initially indicating that it would conclude its cross-examination on the day.
The matter was postponed to September 16, 17 and 18.
Challita is expected to continue his testimony when the matter resumes on September 16, while another State witness is expected to take the stand on September 17 and 18.
The sentencing proceedings are continuing in the Johannesburg High Court.
WATCH: Defence challenges Elie Challita’s evidence during Hughes sentencing
