The sentencing hearing against Amber Lee Hughes continued at the Johannesburg High Court on September 16, with Hughes’ defence cross-examining State witness Elie Challita while the court revisited key aspects of Hughes’ previous testimony and psychiatric assessment.

Hughes’ defence attorney, Marius Bouwer, questioned Challita extensively about messages exchanged with Hughes, family photographs presented during the trial and his relationship with the accused before and after Gene’s death.

During his testimony, Challita maintained that Hughes had used personal information he had shared with her against him.

“The accused has raped and murdered my child,” Challita told the court.

Messages and photographs scrutinised

Bouwer questioned Challita about messages sent during a period of strained relations between him and Hughes, including one in which Challita acknowledged he may have sent an angry message directed at Hughes’ family.

The defence also challenged him about photographs shown during the trial, suggesting Hughes had taken most of them.

Challita rejected that claim, telling the court that most of the photographs had been taken before Hughes entered their lives and that only about two occasions involved her.

Messages involving Hughes’ father

The court also heard messages exchanged between Challita and Hughes’ father during a difficult period in his relationship with Hughes.

Challita was taken through a message sent at 6:57:45 in which he asked whether the recipient was “breaking the house down”. A message sent shortly afterwards, at 6:59:53, stated that he could not have a baby.

Hughes’ father responded at 7:39, saying: “We understand, but it’s up to you too.”

Bouwer questioned Challita about whether the response indicated that Hughes’ father was telling the pair that they needed to resolve the matter between themselves.

Psychiatric report revisited

State advocate Rolene Barnard asked the court to revisit earlier proceedings during which the defence had requested additional time to obtain expert psychological evidence for sentencing.

Barnard reminded the court that the defence had initially indicated it would call a forensic or clinical psychologist before later abandoning that plan.

Judge Mkhabela referred to the joint psychiatric report prepared under Section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which found that Hughes had criminal capacity at the time of the offences.

The report concluded that she was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions and act in accordance with that understanding.

Earlier testimony referenced

Barnard also referred to Hughes’ earlier testimony about a pregnancy scare in September 2022.

Evidence read into the record showed that Hughes testified she had initially believed she was pregnant before later confirming that she was not.

Bouwer argued that his line of questioning concerned conversations between Challita and Hughes’ father rather than whether Hughes had actually been pregnant.

The sentencing proceedings continue.

WATCH: Defence challenges Elie Challita’s evidence during Hughes sentencing