Newcastle CPF Trial Update: Cross-Examination Reveals Major Inconsistencies

The trial of Ishmaeel Dhalech, former Chairperson of the Newcastle Community Policing Forum, and his co-accused—Ebrahim Adams, Mahomed Ashraf, and Yaseen Mohamed—has officially commenced. This highly anticipated legal proceeding, however, has begun on a precarious footing for the prosecution.

Court proceedings began on Monday, 23 January 2025, and continued into Tuesday, 24 January 2025. During this period, two witnesses presented their testimonies, which, under cross-examination, cast considerable doubt upon the prosecution’s case.

On Tuesday, the second witness, who had started her testimony the previous day, entered the courtroom with a visibly tense, yet resolute, expression. However, as the proceedings unfolded, she increasingly struggled to provide coherent answers.

Under questioning by the defence team, comprising Ravindra Maniklall and Zubair Chothia, the witness grew progressively more anxious, her emotions occasionally surfacing during the cross-examination. Maniklall pointedly enquired why the witness did not attempt to contact the police or an ambulance when she observed the incident unfolding.

As Newcastle residents will recall, Dhalech, Adams, Ashraf, and Mohamed were apprehended on 23 September 2024, following murder charges. They stand accused of the murder of 26-year-old Khulekani Hlatshwayo on 25 December 2022.

At the time of their arrest, Newcastle SAPS spokesperson Lizzy Arumugam stated that ambulance services had responded to a call in Bird Street, where Hlatshwayo was discovered “brutally beaten, lying naked in an open field. He was later identified by his mother and had sustained severe injuries, tragically succumbing while being transported to the hospital from the Newcastle Police Station.

It should be further noted that a post-mortem report detailed that Hlatshwayo endured “over 100 gashes across his body, severe internal and external bruising, bleeding to the brain, and broken limbs.” His lungs were “swollen and bruised, making it almost impossible for him to breathe.” These distressing details sent shivers through those present in the courtroom.

Moreover, as further elaborated by Arumugam at the time, despite investigations led by Warrant Officer Henning De Meyer, “no clear leads initially emerged regarding the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death.” However, in August 2024, a breakthrough occurred when “an informant presented key information that significantly advanced the case.” It was this development that led to the arrest of the four accused.

To read more, click here.

It is also important to highlight that the four accused had responded to a burglary in progress on Lincoln Street, where the deceased, Khulekani Hlatshwayo, was reportedly discovered on the roof of the house he was allegedly attempting to break into.

After being found on the roof, Hlatshwayo reportedly climbed down and attempted to flee. It is alleged that a group of crime fighters, residents, and the four accused pursued him, reportedly assaulting him at the scene.

As the incident unfolded at her (the witness) home, with the crowd allegedly assaulting the deceased in her yard, Maniklall enquired, “Why did you not call the police or the ambulance when you witnessed the deceased being assaulted?”

In response, the witness claimed she had been cautioned by her neighbour “to not report it, as she would get into trouble with the authorities because she sold drugs.”

Despite asserting that she did not sell drugs, she could not explain why she failed to contact the necessary officials on the fateful day, adhering to her narrative that her neighbour had advised against it, claiming she would face repercussions for drug dealing, even though she maintained she did not sell drugs. She also claimed that “cases opened against the CPF would also disappear,” offering another explanation for her inaction.

During the court proceedings, it was revealed that the deceased had initially been assaulted in her backyard. With the neighbour having a clear view into her yard, Maniklall highlighted how “Yaseen Mohamed’s mother had contacted her to caution her to stop assaulting the man or there would be trouble.” A fact the witness vehemently denied.

Furthermore, it was stressed during cross-examination that the witness possesses a CCTV surveillance system at her residence.

However, despite the witness asserting that “the system had been off during the whole incident and therefore never filmed anything due to loadshedding,” it was brought to light that in her official statement to the police, she had led them to believe she possessed footage, granting them permission “to download the necessary footage from the DVR.”

To this, the witness denied the footage ever being on and attempted to shift the blame for her statement onto the investigating officer, denying deleting any footage on the empty DVR.

Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the witness’s statement, it was also discovered that she did not, in fact, witness two of the accused harming the deceased, as the vehicle they allegedly used to transport the deceased was obstructed by a tree. Further scepticism was cast over her testimony when she could not explain precisely what she witnessed Dhalech and Adams do, owing to the large crowd. It was also established that the witness did not see the suspects remove the deceased’s clothes.

With this in mind, it was highlighted in court that the first witness had acknowledged being mistaken about seeing the suspects at the scene or harming the victim, adding a degree of uncertainty around the state’s case.

While the trial was initially scheduled to recommence on Wednesday, 25 June 2025, the case will be provisionally postponed until 1 July 2025, with the final leg of the trial commencing in September 2025. This postponement is to allow the state to subpoena the remainder of their witnesses, as two other witnesses were unavailable to attend the trial.

The initial days of this high-profile trial have clearly demonstrated the complexities and challenges facing the prosecution. The early testimonies, particularly under rigorous cross-examination, have introduced significant elements of doubt and highlighted inconsistencies that will undoubtedly shape the subsequent proceedings.

As the trial progresses through its various postponements, all eyes remain on the Newcastle courthouse. The outcome of this case holds considerable weight for all parties involved and for the broader community, as it seeks to bring clarity and justice to a tragic event.

What are your thoughts on the above? Share your views in the comment section below.