In the quiet town of SALDANHA BAY, a storm is brewing. It's a storm of legal battles, unanswered questions, and the haunting absence of a young girl named Joshlin Smith. This is a story that has gripped South Africa, a story of alleged human trafficking, desperate measures, and a relentless search for justice.
Nearly a year and a half has passed since Joshlin vanished from her home in the Middelpos informal settlement on 19 February 2024. The initial missing person case quickly morphed into a complex investigation, uncovering a web of alleged deceit and horrifying accusations.
Three individuals – Kelly Smith, Joshlin's own mother, along with Jacquen Appollis, her boyfriend, and Steveno van Rhyn, a friend – now find themselves at the centre of this tragic narrative. On 29 May 2025, they were handed life sentences for trafficking in persons and an additional 10 years for kidnapping. Yet, the legal drama is far from over.
Just weeks into their life sentences, all three have filed applications for leave to appeal their convictions and sentences. According to South African law, this application had to be filed within 14 days of the sentencing, which the lawyers for the convicted trio did. Steveno van Rhyn's counsel was the first to file her papers, as she had indicated from the moment the sentencing was pronounced that she and her client still maintain their innocence and were, therefore, going to appeal the conviction and the sentencing. They maintain their innocence, claiming they were wrongly accused and unfairly judged. The wheels of justice, it seems, are turning once more.
Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi, representing Steveno van Rhyn, has vehemently declared that their fight is far from over. She argues that her client was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, attempting to sell a microwave, and had no knowledge of the alleged crime unfolding around him.
But what about the evidence presented in court? What led Judge Nathan Erasmus to deliver such a harsh sentence? To understand this, we must delve into the intricate details of the trial, the testimonies, and the challenges faced by both the prosecution and the defence.
The trial was not without its hurdles. Judge Erasmus himself criticised the State's evidence gathering as 'sloppy', particularly during a trial within a trial concerning alleged mistreatment of Steveno van Rhyn and Jacquen Appollis by police officers.
Van Rhyn claimed he was tortured by police, including being suffocated with a plastic bag and threatened with death, in an attempt to force a confession. He said he was offered a ride in a white double cab bakkie, but when they reached his stop, he was told to stay in the vehicle. He claimed he was mistreated. He said he was handcuffed and ordered to lie down in the back of the bakkie.
He was taken close to the ocean. He said they pinched him, opened his mouth and forced a gun inside his mouth, promising to kill him and burning him inside the sand or throw him in the ocean. He stated he was taken to the Sea Board Offices where the mistreatment continued. Van Rhyn said several police officers were present, and he was threatened with being killed. He said they removed the handcuffs and ordered him to take off his sweater. He removed his sweater and they handcuffed him again. He was hanging mid-air. A plastic bag was placed over his head while he was hit on his head, legs, feet, and hands. He said he could not breathe and felt that he was going to die. This was repeated several times. He said he shook his head to make the torture stop, and they removed the plastic bag.
He said he told them he was ready to talk, even though he had already given them a detailed statement. He realized that if he didn't tell them what they wanted to hear, they would kill him. Van Rhyn further stated that when he went for a medical examination, he was warned not to reveal any details of his injuries or he would be killed.
Despite these claims, video footage of Van Rhyn giving his statement showed him appearing calm and even smiling at times. Judge Erasmus questioned the accuracy of the written statement, noting that it did not seem to reflect what was said in the video.
Adding another layer of complexity to the case is Lourentia Lombaard, a former co-accused who became the State's key witness. Lombaard's testimony was central to the prosecution's case, but her credibility was repeatedly challenged.
Lombaard, a self-confessed drug user, admitted to being under the influence at the time of her arrest. She also acknowledged inconsistencies in her statements to the police, claiming she was 'confused' during questioning.
During cross-examination, Lombaard revealed a troubled past, marked by drug addiction and a disrupted education. She told the court she was a responsible and caring mother who would neither do anything to harm her children nor allow anyone to hurt them.
Mkabayi asked Lombaard about her drug consumption history. Lombaard responded, narrating how she felt about drugs and the kind of drugs she used to take. “When you smoke tik, you feel high, and when you smoke mandrax, you also get high, and everything is in slow motion. I smoked mandrax with the head of a broken beer bottle and didn’t smoke much of marijuana,” she said.
She spoke of her dreams of becoming a model, dreams that were derailed by her addiction to tik and mandrax. She admitted that her drug use could have affected her initial statements to the police.
Despite her troubled past, Lombaard provided crucial testimony, alleging that she witnessed Kelly Smith take Joshlin to meet an unknown woman the day before she disappeared. She claimed she overheard Smith telling Appollis that someone wanted to buy Joshlin and that Smith later confessed to selling her daughter to a sangoma, a traditional healer, for R20,000. Lombaard also claimed that Kelly received R20,000 for Joshlin and promised Lombaard R1,000 to keep quiet. One thousand two hundred was allegedly supposed to be given to Van Rhyn, who was aware of the child’s sale. Lombaard claimed she never followed up on the money, and Kelly never gave it to her. In her presence, Kelly showed Appollis some money and said: "Here is the money the sangoma gave me."
She claimed that Kelly then turned to her and admitted: "Renz, I started a bad thing. I have now sold my child to a sangoma." Lombaard claimed she confronted Kelly, questioning why she would sell her kid for money. Kelly responded that she needed money and was suffering. When the witness insisted on condemning Kelly’s actions, Kelly allegedly told her: "It's done, and I can’t do anything about it."
She also claimed that Smith told her that the "person who [allegedly took] Joshlin wanted her for her eyes and skin".
However, Steveno van Rhyn painted a different picture, suggesting that Lombaard herself was involved in Joshlin's disappearance. He stated that he visited Boeta’s place and found Laurentia Lombaard, who was previously accused in the matter, at the house. He asked them to make him drugs, but they didn't have any. Later, he returned and Lombaard handed him a pipe, and Boeta put drugs in it. He didn't see any of Kelly’s children at that time. Van Rhyn said he returned to Boeta's house after trying to sell his microwave. He and Lombaard agreed on a price of R50 for her cell phone. As she was leaving, he heard her call for Joshlin to check on her sleeping baby. He said he never saw Joshlin that day, and Lombaard never came back.
These conflicting accounts raise serious questions about Lombaard's role in the events leading up to Joshlin's disappearance. Was she a reliable witness, or was she attempting to deflect blame and protect herself?
As the legal proceedings continue, Lombaard's fate hangs in the balance. An inquiry is expected to determine whether she should be granted indemnity for her role in Joshlin's disappearance. If she is not granted indemnity, her case will be referred back to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
The NPA spokesperson Eric Ntabazalila said the NPA was also awaiting a date for the 204 inquiry to determine whether former accused-turned-State-witness Lourentia Lombaard should be granted indemnity for her role in Joshlin’s disappearance.
Meanwhile, the search for Joshlin continues. Despite extensive searches and investigations, the little girl remains missing. State prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel has expressed her belief that Joshlin is still alive, clinging to the hope that she will be found.
Swanepoel told the webinar that when she heard of the disappearance of Joshlin, “I knew that it was going to be difficult because there is no precedent, there is no similar case available. I knew it would be necessary to develop the law; this was therefore a test case and identified as such.”
Swanepoel was asked during a webinar the day after Joshlin Smith’s traffickers and kidnappers filed for leave to appeal against their conviction and life sentences whether she still believed the little girl was alive. She responded that “we have done a comprehensive search in SALDANHA of all the exhibits. Everything that was found in all of those dunes, all the bones, all the clothing, was analysed, there were no positive DNA results found on anything.
“I’m convinced that she is still alive. However, I don’t know where she is. I can only hope we find her.”
Dr Beatri Kruger, a research fellow at the Free State Centre for Human Rights, asked what would happen if the State now found the sangoma who was said to have been involved and if there had been a muti murder.
“Yes, the case has been finalised,” Swanepoel replied. “If we now receive any other evidence or information… as to who Joshlin was sold to or delivered to, and we find that person, we find the exploiters, we will still be able to prosecute all of those people.
“That will be a separate prosecution. It would be a new case docket, new evidence and evaluation thereof – our test is if there is a reasonable prospect of successful prosecution before we go to court.”
Swanepoel, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the Western Cape, is part of the Organised Crime component of the DPP office in Cape Town, and has dedicated the past 18 years of her career to combating human trafficking.
The case has also raised concerns about the role of traditional healers and the potential for exploitation. While sangomas are legally recognised in South Africa, some charlatans have been known to engage in unscrupulous practices, selling good luck charms that involve body parts.
It was not made clear in court why a sangoma would want a child like this. A woman believed to be a traditional healer was initially arrested and charged alongside Ms Smith and her co-accused last year, but the charges against her were eventually dropped because of a lack of evidence.
As the legal battles unfold, the memory of Joshlin Smith remains a haunting presence. The questions linger: What truly happened to her? Will she ever be found? And will justice ultimately prevail? The answers, for now, remain elusive, shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty and legal complexities. The world watches, waiting for the next chapter in this unsettling saga.
Follow Us on Twitter
