The court proceedings against the Newcastle Community Policing Forum (CPF) members, Ismaeel Dhalech, Ebrahim Adams, Mahomed Ashraf, and Yaseen Mahomed, resumed on Tuesday morning, 19 November 2024, as supporters filled the sweltering courtroom, eager to witness the next chapter of the dramatic saga surrounding the four men.
As Newcastillians will recall, the four men were arrested on 23 September 2024, facing charges of murder in connection with the death of Khulekani Hlatshwayo in December 2022.
At the time of their arrest, the Newcastle SAPS provided details that the accused had responded to a burglary in progress in Lenoxton. Upon their arrival at the scene, they allegedly found the deceased on the roof of a home. It was claimed that Hlatshwayo attempted to flee after climbing down from the roof, but the accused and community members chased him, allegedly beating him before leaving him to die.
To read more, click here.
Only Ashraf was granted bail, as he was allowed to complete his school examinations. However, the controversial arrest of the four men has caused division within the Newcastle community. Some residents are demanding their immediate sentencing, while others are firm in their belief that the four men are victims of circumstance and completely innocent of the charges against them.
Nevertheless, despite the mix bag of emotions on Tuesday, it became evident that the case was far from as clear-cut as some might have assumed.
During the proceedings, the State Prosecutor requested that the case be postponed until January 2025, citing the need for outstanding statements that were essential to their case against Dhalech, Adams, Ashraf, and Mahomed. These included video evidence and statements from the ambulance personnel who had transported the deceased.
This request did not sit well with Presiding Officer Vernita Mundell, who made it clear that she would not postpone the case unless the Prosecution could provide solid grounds for such a delay, especially as the case was due to be heard in the Newcastle Regional Court within the same month. “I was told the investigations were complete,” she remarked.
With this in mind, the court was briefly adjourned to allow the Prosecution to provide reasons for the delay. When proceedings resumed, the Prosecution explained that not only was video evidence and the statements from ambulance personnel still outstanding, but the Investigating Officer, Henning de Meyer, was on official leave and unable to attend the court session.
Furthermore, Mundell expressed her concern, stating that certain aspects of the case didn’t add up, particularly in light of the Prosecution’s repeated requests for delays regarding information that was meant to be complete and already in the court’s possession.
Given these complications, the defence attorneys for the accused made a formal request for the provisional withdrawal of charges against the four men, pending the Prosecution’s ability to provide the necessary information and evidence to support their case.
Mundell, however, denied this request. She emphasised that despite the Prosecution’s time to already gather the required information, she would allow them additional time to gather the remaining evidence. She also instructed the Prosecution to respond to her queries, which had been raised with them in chambers before the case began.
Referring to the defence’s request, Mundell stated, “I will not strike the case off, but I will ask the defence to bring in a new bail application. I will also not allow the old evidence to be brought forward again, and the Prosecution would need to notify the court if they misled the court or if there was insufficient evidence.”
Mundell further ordered the Prosecution to provide her with feedback on 26 November 2024 and to notify the defence team of their findings, allowing them to prepare adequately for the case. If the Prosecution’s feedback does not meet the court’s expectations, Adams, Dhalech, and Mohamed may have the opportunity to apply for bail again while the case continues.
As the Prosecution sought another postponement, many in the courtroom expressed their dissatisfaction with the ongoing delays. One supporter claimed that the Prosecution was “grasping at straws,” accusing them of using delay tactics to keep the accused behind bars.
With the court proceedings set to continue on 26 November 2024, the question remains: What are your thoughts on these developments? Share your views in the comment section below.
Comments 2
Loop hole in the case, the investigating officer now has to still get the paramedics statements who transported the deceased, should have not being sorted out already, the prosecution team is gathering more evidence apparently there was video footage that went missing and reappeared, now more evidence is needed, if you ask me opinion the prosecution team are definitely wasting valuable time and money, conviently on the day that there was supposed to a Regional court date given the investigating officer is on official leave, and then the presiding officer retracts and says should the new evidence ect not be presented she will give the defence team an opportunity to re apply for bail for their clients, however she won’t strike the case off the role, ask yourself if these were normal citizens who were accused of a crime of this nature would the case be dragged out so long or is this a case of people especially the justice system seeing these 4 people as true heroes and a blind eye will be turned on their crimes, then again the state does have a lot to loose as these 4 could turn around and sue the state, can the prosecution team, presiding officer and investigating officer afford this to happen or are they going to buck up and get this case to Regional court and let justice be served.
After 2 years they opened a case against the accused men, yet they still don’t have solid evidence!! Now they using delay tactics to keep them behind bars.
And on the other hand i would like to know why is it that other criminals with much more serious offences get bail and their cases are not given such seriousness like this case. Lets flip the coin….if the deceased criminal had killed someone on that night while breaking into the home….it would have just been a case number in the SAPS files. Thats the unfortunate reality of our so called justice system. Where criminals are given more rights than citizens who are also fed up and frustrated with the crime.
In this case…theres definitely something more to it that made them dig into it 2 years later. I wish all cases were given such importance especially when our innocent citizens become deceased due to crime.