Emotions Run High as Newcastle CPF Members Dhalech, Adams, and Mahomed Granted Bail

Uncertainty surrounds the murder case involving Newcastle Community Policing Forum members Ismaeel Dhalech, Ebrahim Adams, Mahomed Ashraf, and Yaseen Mahomed, as doubts are now being raised about the credibility of the case against them.

Anticipation filled the courtroom on Tuesday, 3 December 2024, as Dhalech and Mahomed stepped into the dock, facing the Magistrate, legal representatives, and a crowd of community members eager to see the next chapter of the case unfold.

Tensions ran high, with a single pressing question lingering in everyone’s mind: would Dhalech, Adams, and Mahomed finally be granted bail and join their co-accused, Ashraf, outside of prison?

As Newcastillians will remember, the Presiding Officer of the case at the Magistrate Court, Vernita Mundell, ordered the Prosecution team to unveil their docket and make it available to the four men’s defence attorneys, as to ensure the opportunity for a fair and unbiased court case. The evidence included statements which had not been submitted to the courts and alleged video footage of the brutal murder the men were accused of.

The defence team, on the other hand, were instructed to reapply for a bail application for the men, which would be reviewed if reasonable grounds could be provided on why they should be granted bail.

To read more, click here.

With this in mind, the prosecution and defence teams were ready to ensure their voices were heard and that justice would prevail. However, as the court proceedings began, the credibility of the evidence was questioned, with the prosecution team unable to provide the statements from the ambulance officials who picked up the deceased and the video footage which still had not been submitted.

The defence team, consisting of Ravindra Maniklall and Zubair Chothia, stated that they were informed the footage could not be retrieved from the hard drive where it was reportedly stored. They were told the hard drive had been damaged, possibly due to various factors, with loadshedding suggested as a potential cause.

With this critical piece of evidence no longer available to the prosecution and the absence of statements from the paramedics who were first on the scene, the defence emphasised significant investigative shortcomings. They pointed out that, despite the murder occurring in December 2022, the investigating officer failed to obtain statements from all neighbours and witnesses present at the scene of the attack. Furthermore, throughout the time since the crime, no one had identified the accused as the perpetrators. It was only 20 months later that the informant came forward.. “If they are such outstanding citizens, why did they not call the paramedics when the attack was taking place? If they did, maybe the deceased would still be here today,” the defence noted.

Reflecting on the discrepancies of the case, the defence team stated, “One cannot run a murder investigation with tunnel vision. The State’s case is not as ‘strong or infallible’ as they initially led people to believe.”

Mundell echoed these concerns, stressing that the missing evidence was sufficient to cast significant doubt over the case. She further noted the inconsistency of certain witnesses who claimed to be too fearful to testify against the accused, yet showed no hesitation in sharing their opinions and stance on the matter in the comment section of news articles related to the case.

Moreover, Mundell further noted that the police officers who had attended the scene on the day when the deceased was being attacked, and who then left the scene, should have been taken into custody, as they could be viewed as potential accessories to the crime.

Moreover, the prosecuting team noted that they did not acquire the statements from the paramedics who arrived at the scene first, as they were junior staff members who had called their seniors to the scene to assist, and it was the senior paramedics’ statements that were obtained.

With tensions rising, Mundell adjourned the court shortly before 1 pm, announcing she would make her judgement on the matter at 2 pm. Standing with bated breath, friends and family of the accused stood around the court, anxiously waiting for the verdict. Would they be released on bail?

Following the wait, Mundell took her chair and explained that as the third bail application for Dhalech, Adams, and Mahomed, it was essential for prosecutors to fully familiarise themselves with their cases to avoid any discrepancies and potential negligence.

Stating the necessity for the accused to have a fair trial, Mundell noted that a shadow of doubt lingers over the credibility of the witnesses’ statements, the prosecuting team lacking certain information and facts, and according to the defence’s justifiable reasons for the three men’s release, she granted Dhalech, Adams, and Mahomed bail.

The defence team initially requested that bail be set at R5 000, but the prosecuting team put an end to this, stressing that the bail should be at least R10 000 due to the seriousness of the crime they are facing.

Emotions ran high when Dhalech, Adams, and Mahomed were granted bail, family and friends rushing to hug them in support, many with tears in their eyes. Adams is still currently in hospital, and his bail conditions will be given to him, and once he has signed the relevant documents and it has been returned to Mundell, he will be released on bail.

Looking to next year, it was noted that the real journey still lay ahead with the trial set to start on 20 February 2025 at the Newcastle Regional Court. The accused were warned that if they infringed on any of their bail conditions, a warrant of arrest would be issued against them.

With all four accused now on bail, what are your thoughts on the above?

Share your views in the comment section below.