Verdict in Piet Els murder case expected in January

The verdict in the murder, robbery and theft case involving the now deceased businessman Piet Els is expected to be pronounced in January next year.

The verdict in the murder, robbery and theft case involving the now deceased businessman Piet Els is expected to be pronounced in January next year.

During closing arguments in the Northern Cape High Court, senior state attorney Hannes Cloete argued that Jabulani Zuma, the son of former president Jacob Zuma, played an integral role in committing the crime.

Zuma and his co-defendants – Morapedi Rankali, Montlalentwa Qhautse, Lizbeth Ndlala, Themba Lawrence Maja, Oupa Jeffrey Mahomane and Samson Mbokane – are charged with murder, house robbery, burglary with intent to commit robbery and unlawful possession of firearms.

Els and his partner were brutally attacked at his farm outside Kimberley in the early hours of January 24, 2018, with jewellery, diamonds, Kruger Rands, mobile phones and two firearms stolen. Els’ white Mercedes-Benz was found abandoned near Phuthanang later that day.

Cloete argued that the suspect had shared in the loot from the robbery and received cash bundles of R10,000.

“There was an ongoing association between the suspects. Zuma transported the suspect from Nelspruit to Kimberley. There is no doubt they came to Kimberley for the robbery. Zuma dropped the attackers off at Els’ farm and picked them up after the robbery. Mbokane admitted that he spent the R10,000 while Ndlala and Maja, traditional healers, came to perform a cleansing ritual,” Cloete said.

He added that Mbokane told police he came to Kimberley because Zuma told him someone there had “Paul Kruger money” (Kruger Rand coins).

He added that Zuma was “charming and comfortable” when he was arrested in KwaZulu Natal.

Cloete stated that Zuma’s behavior was “charming and comfortable” when he was arrested in KwaZulu-Natal.

“He mentioned the victim’s name to the police, implying that he was aware of the robbery. The blame was shifted to Mahomane, who he identified as having knowledge of Kimberley. Mbokane told him that ‘if everything goes well, we will be rich’.”

Cloete stated that Zuma gave the impression that the other suspects all had access to his mobile phone and claimed he was tired and had fallen asleep. “He wanted to distance himself from the mobile phone.”

The legal representative of Rankali and Maja, lawyer Japie Schreuder, stated that there were no links between his clients and the other co-suspects.

“There is no evidence to place my clients at the crime scene,” he said.

Schreuder added that Rankali should only be found guilty on theft charges. ‘He only kept the rings on behalf of his brother Karabo Rankali. Maja knew nothing about the victims’ possession of two broken pieces of a ring. He should only be found guilty of robbery and not murder.”

Schreuder added that Maja was a traditional healer in training.

“He also received R10,000 and was found in possession of stolen property.”

Mahomane’s legal representative, lawyer Kenny Pretorius, admitted that mobile communications took place between his client and Zuma.

“R10,000, a mobile phone belonging to the deceased and other stolen items found in Mahomane’s possession link him and his co-accused to the crime.”

He points out that, given the age of the deceased and the brutal nature of the assault, the suspect should have known that the consequences could have been fatal.

Zuma’s legal representative, Moetleetsi Mogwere, argued that due process was not followed when evidence was seized from the suspect and charges against his client should be dropped.

“My client was merely the driver who transported the suspect from Mpumalanga to Kimberley and back to Nelspruit. He had not made any plans nor was he involved in any crime. The money he received was for transportation costs and he did not know that the source of the money was the proceeds of crime. Cell phone transcripts do not conclusively link communications between the suspects.”

He added that Zuma “was tired and had gone to sleep”, giving people in the house access to his mobile phone.

“He woke up when he heard pandemonium outside and was chased out of the house.”

Mogwere pointed out that without the evidence of co-conspirator Amos Ralihare, who was on the run from the law, holes were left in the state’s case.

“All charges against Zuma must be dropped.”

The legal representative of Qhautse, Ndlala and Mbokane, lawyer Thema Diba, has stated that DNA analysis has never proven that the shoe prints that match the pair of sneakers found in a barracks during Qhautse’s arrest and which were found near Els’ building were found, were his footprints.

He added that the shoes were also not his size.

“Ndlala was not present at the crime scene and was not aware of the crime. She was not involved in the crime and did not know under what circumstances the goods were stolen.”

Diba said there was no evidence against Mbokane.

Judge Lawrence Lever adjourned the case until January 27 and 31, 2025.