Witness evidence under fire as defence exposes flaws

A LEGAL representative for former Ward 64 councillor, Gavin Hegter filed an application in the Durban Magistrate’s Court seeking to have the witnesses’ testimony dismissed and the assault case thrown out, citing inconsistencies in the versions of events presented by the State witnesses.

Hegter is charged with assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) after he allegedly hit Mncedisi with a torch on the mouth in November 2024 in Yellowwood Park.

The defence filed an application under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, asking the court to dismiss the case without the accused having to present any evidence.

Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows the defence to apply for an acquittal after the State has presented all its evidence and witnesses, and the defence believes that the State has no prima facie case against the accused.

Hegter’s lawyer challenges the credibility of witnesses

The defence poked holes in the evidence of the two witnesses, Mncedisi Dlamini and Lindizwe Dlamini, saying the statements presented lacked crucial evidence which leaves the State with no case.

Also read: New legal twist in councillor’s assault case

The defence also argues that a medical report detailing the nature of the victim’s (Mncedisi) injuries should be dismissed as it is based solely on the account provided by the victim to the doctor.

Hegter’s lawyer said Mncedisi failed to prove to the court that the accused had any intention to assault him.

Some of the arguments brought by the defence in the application:

1. The case is politically motivated

2. The assault incident is a contorted story made up by the witnesses

3. Lindizwe’s adjusted version of his witness statement made to the police should be dismissed as it lacks credibility

4. Both statements by the witnesses are riddled with inaccuracies

On Tuesday(July 8), the defence told the court that Lindizwe harboured malicious intentions to bolster support for his brother.

The defence highlighted the following inconsistencies:

1. A statement compiled by a police officer states that Lindizwe went to Clairwood Hospital following the assault. However, Lindizwe denied this, asserting that it was his brother (Mncedisi) who sought medical attention at the hospital.

2. A group of people were standing on Hoopoe Lane, a road near Hegter’s residence and the property Lindizwe was guarding. Lindizwe said he saw these unknown individuals while returning from the shop, where he had gone to buy spices.

3. Lindizwe’s statement states that both he and Mncedisi went to the shop to buy spices. However, Lindizwe denied this, asserting that he went alone and that his brother did not accompany him.

4. Lindizwe told the court that Hegter assaulted his brother using the back part of a torch, while Mncedisi testified that the accused hit him with the front part of the torch.

Also read: Ward 64 councillor back in court for assault

What do we know about the State witnesses?

1. Lindizwe is not the biological brother of Mncedisi, but they are friends sharing the same surname

2. Lindizwe was employed as a security guard by Vimbani Security

3. Lindizwe stayed in the property he guarded at Hoopoe Lane in Yellowwood Park

4. The house he guarded and stayed in had no electricity after it burnt down years ago

5. Mncedisi worked as a presiding officer for the Independent Electoral Commission during the elections

6. Lindizwe was wearing an MK Party T-shirt when the assault happened

7. Lindizwe told the court that his witness statement was narrated in IsiZulu and translated into English by the officer. However, he indicated that the officer merely summarised the contents of the statement before asking him to sign.

8. In his witness statement, Lindizwe said the incident happened on November 16, 2024, however, under cross examination he testified that it took place on November 15, 2024.

Also read: Ward 64 councillor Gavin Hegter resigns

Key facts of the case:

1. The assault incident was reported to Montclair police station

2. Hegter was served with the summons to appear in court

3. He made first appearances at the Wentworth Magistrate’s Court on February 20

4. The case was moved from Wentworth Magistrate’s Court to Durban Magistrate’s Court for safety and security reasons.

5. The case has sparked interest among community members and political parties such as the ANC and uMkhonto weSizwe Party.

The matter was adjourned to allow the State to respond to the defence’s application. The trial will continue on July 29 and 30, and August 11 for the presentation of further evidence.

For more Southlands Sun news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. You can also check out our videos on our YouTube channel or follow us on TikTok.

Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter and get news delivered straight to your inbox.