The Meyiwa trial evidence contradictions continue to cast doubt on the state’s version of events in the ongoing murder trial of five men accused of killing soccer star Senzo Meyiwa in 2014. Legal analysts suggest that these contradictions may support the defence’s Section 174 application to dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence.
During proceedings, defence lawyers pointed out inconsistencies in witness statements and lapses in how critical evidence was handled. These concerns challenge the credibility of the state’s case.
Mishandled Evidence Weakens Prosecution
One of the biggest concerns involves a bullet projectile collected at the scene. Police failed to seal, label, or log it in the SAPS 13 register, which tracks evidence from collection to court. Without this documentation, the defence argues, the integrity of the item is questionable.
Advocate Refilwe Lethunya told Sunday Times Daily that mishandling evidence creates serious legal risks. “If the chain of custody breaks, so does the credibility of the evidence,” she explained. The defence has repeatedly used this issue to undermine the prosecution’s forensic findings.
Witness Contradictions Surface
The Meyiwa trial evidence contradictions extend to police testimonies. Several officers gave conflicting accounts about who collected evidence and how it was stored. These differences have raised questions about coordination among investigators.
Advocate Zandile Mshololo criticised the state for not analysing blood swabs taken from the crime scene. She argued that proper testing could have shown whether intruders were present, helping confirm or challenge witness claims.
Defence Eyes Section 174 Discharge
Legal expert Nthabiseng Dubazana noted that these multiple contradictions could justify a Section 174 discharge. “The judge must decide if the state has built a credible case. If not, the accused may walk free without testifying,” she said.
Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng will soon determine whether the trial proceeds. For now, the Meyiwa trial evidence contradictions remain a central issue that may reshape the outcome of this high-profile case.
