warning statements) all three accused elected to be legally represented before making any statement. I pause here to remark that all this happened in the span of one day, a few hours after their arrest. [42] The reaction by the accused persons afterwards is unexpected and stands in sharp contrast with evidence about them to return the items ‘wanting they had taken (stolen)’ and them being co-operative, voluntarily admitting their guilt in the commission of the crimes. It appears to me that such conduct rather points to the contrary; more consistent with their defence denying any pointing out made by them. The accused persons further dispute having made any admission to Inspector Lungameni whereby they admitted their guilt. [43] According to the accused their rights were never explained to them simply because there was no pointing out. It is common cause that at no stage before the recording of the warning statements, was any of the rights explained to the accused, or any of the alleged statements or admissions made by the accused to any of the police officers, reduced to writing. In the absence of concrete documentary evidence as proof thereof, the only evidence on this score is the testimony of the police officers. While Sergeant Irmaly testified about Inspector Lungameni having explained to the accused persons (whilst together) their rights only once before any pointing out was made, Inspector Lungameni and Sergeants Shatika and Amunyela said this was done several times, every time before the accused made a pointing out. Amunyela took it a step further and said Inspector Lungameni asked accused no 3 after his pointing out whether he was threatened or assaulted in any way, and whether he was injured. Again there are notable contradictions in the respective versions of the police officers. [44] Accused no 3 had been in the custody of Inspector Lungameni from the time of his arrest up to the stage where the pointing out was made; what need would there have been to pose these questions to him? Neither Inspector Lungameni nor any of the other officers present gave evidence to that effect and it seems inevitable to conclude that Sergeant Amunyela invented this aspect of his evidence, probably attempting to give credence to evidence
warning statements) all three accused elected to be legally represented before making any statement. I pause here to remark that all this happened in the span of one day, a few hours after their arrest. [42] The reaction by the accused persons afterwards is unexpected and stands in sharp contrast with evidence about them ‘wanting to return the items they had taken (stolen)’ and them being co-operative, voluntarily admitting their guilt in the commission of the crimes. It appears to me that such conduct rather points to the contrary; more consistent with their defence denying any pointing out made by them. The accused persons further dispute having made any admission to Inspector Lungameni whereby they admitted their guilt. [43] According to the accused their rights were never explained to them simply because there was no pointing out. It is common cause that at no stage before the recording of the warning statements, was any of the rights explained to the accused, or any of the alleged statements or admissions made by the accused to any of the police officers, reduced to writing. In the absence of concrete documentary evidence as proof thereof, the only evidence on this score is the testimony of the police officers. While Sergeant Irmaly testified about Inspector Lungameni having explained to the accused persons (whilst together) their rights only once before any pointing out was made, Inspector Lungameni and Sergeants Shatika and Amunyela said this was done several times, every time before the accused made a pointing out. Amunyela took it a step further and said Inspector Lungameni asked accused no 3 after his pointing out whether he was threatened or assaulted in any way, and whether he was injured. Again there are notable contradictions in the respective versions of the police officers. [44] Accused no 3 had been in the custody of Inspector Lungameni from the time of his arrest up to the stage where the pointing out was made; what need would there have been to pose these questions to him? Neither Inspector Lungameni nor any of the other officers present gave evidence to that effect and it seems inevitable to conclude that Sergeant Amunyela invented this aspect of his evidence, probably attempting to give credence to evidence
S%20v%20Mbango%20(CC%2019-2012)%20%5B2013%5D%20NAHCNLD%2013%20%20(27%20February%202014).docx