Senzo Meyiwa Murder Trial: Accused Denies Payment and Sangoma Consultation

Meyiwa Murder Trial: Accused Denies Payment and Sangoma Consultation

Pretoria – Muzi Sibiya, one of the men accused of murdering former Bafana Bafana and Orlando Pirates captain Senzo Meyiwa, has vehemently denied allegations that he received payment for the crime or consulted a traditional healer (sangoma) for a cleansing ceremony afterwards.

Sibiya made these denials during cross-examination at the Pretoria High Court on Monday, as the long-running Meyiwa murder trial resumed. The trial's continuation came just a day after South Africans commemorated the 11th anniversary of the soccer star's tragic death.

Advocate George Baloyi, the state prosecutor, led the intense questioning of Sibiya, focusing on allegations that he was paid R30,000 for his involvement in Meyiwa's murder.

Sibiya firmly refuted these claims, stating, “There’s nothing that I have received for killing someone, that includes money, and I have never gone to a sangoma asking for cleansing because I had killed someone.”

The prosecution's line of questioning also delved into the testimony of a traditional healer, Mkhulu Lionel Zwane, who claimed to have interacted with Sibiya and provided him with cleansing muthi (traditional medicine).

Baloyi reminded the court of Zwane's previous testimony, stating, “On Friday, we mentioned that the sangoma, Mkhulu Lionel Zwane, testified before this court, and his evidence is found in the record of September 4, 2023, and he said he had a consultation with you.”

Sibiya, however, maintained that he had never met Zwane before his appearance in court. “The person who came here to testify, I was seeing him for the first time when he came before this court. I have never seen him before,” he responded.

According to Baloyi, Zwane testified that Sibiya had sought inhlanhla emhlophe [white luck] from him prior to the alleged murder of Meyiwa.

“Zwane said his consultation fee is R100, but Sibiya paid him R500. Mkhulu further stated that Sibiya returned after three days to say that the job had been done, and he gave them muthi for cleansing,” Baloyi stated.

Sibiya's lawyer, advocate Charles Mnisi, immediately objected to Baloyi's characterisation of Zwane's evidence, arguing that it was a misrepresentation.

“It cannot be said that Mkhulu said he provided this Sibiya with help. That’s not the evidence of Zwane … he didn’t say that,” Mnisi argued.

Advocate Sipho Ramosepele, representing accused number three, supported Mnisi's objection, pointing out that Zwane had not definitively identified Sibiya in court.

“Zwane was given an opportunity to identify the accused and describe Sibiya as a tall and dark man; he did not say it was the accused before court,” Ramosepele added.

Baloyi countered that Zwane had identified Sibiya when police presented the accused to him outside of court.

Mnisi then turned his attention to a statement allegedly made by Sibiya, stating, “I’m worried about the state putting propositions that are not true and fair. Let us now turn to your statement.”

Sibiya responded, “That is not my statement. I have been saying before this court that I did not write any statement, but I was asked to sign."

He further directed the prosecutor to question Brigadier Bongani Gininda and Colonel Mhlanganyelwa Mbotho regarding the statement. “If you have anything to ask about any statement, ask Brigadier Bongani Gininda and Colonel Mhlanganyelwa Mbotho.”

Sibiya reiterated his denial of knowing Zwane, stating, “I’ve never met anyone called Zwane except when he was here in court. There was never a time when Constable Buthelezi took me to see this Zwane person. I know nothing about this.”

As the cross-examination continues this week, the Meyiwa murder trial is slowly progressing towards its next phase. The trial, which has been marked by numerous delays and controversies, is being closely watched by the South African public, who are eager for justice to be served in the case of the beloved soccer star's death. The conflicting testimonies and ongoing disputes over evidence highlight the complexities of the case and the challenges facing the prosecution.