The trial of four men accused of kidnapping an 11-year-old boy in May 2022 and demanding R1 million ransom from his mom is finally set to start in July at Ntuzuma Magistrate’s Court after two years’ delay.

The delays have been caused by the accused. The recent delay was of the accused dropping their private attorney, as they no longer had money to pay, opting for legal aid.

With a new legal aid attorney on board, this meant that there had to be a pre-trial conference all over again.

The accused, Lindokuhle Mthokozisi Thabede, Mvelo Khuzwayo, Fisokuhle Mathews Mbatha, and the 40-year-old neighbour of the child, whose name cannot be disclosed, allegedly kidnapped the boy at gunpoint, kept him in a certain house and demanded ransom.

After the child was kidnapped, his mother contacted the police, and a R90 000 ransom was paid to the accused under police surveillance.

After one of the accused provided information about the child’s whereabouts, the police were able to rescue the child from the house where he had been detained since the morning of that particular day.

This had been after police intercepted the vehicle the accused had been travelling in.

The ransom money was recovered in the home of one of the accused. The neighbour was the last accused to be arrested after being linked by cellphone evidence. However, he is disputing the State’s evidence.

On Friday, the pre-trial conference took place where the accused indicated that they would dispute the State’s evidence.

Moreover, the State said Mbatha’s fingerprints were found in the house where the child was kept. Mbatha has disputed this.

Both cellphone and fingerprint evidence were led by the State through affidavits of the experts.

Regional Court Prosecutor Kaystree Ramsamujh said the accused cannot object to the expert’s evidence.

“You cannot object to Section 212 witness affidavits unless you are bringing your experts,” she said.

According to Ramsamujh, the DNA analysis expert is in Pretoria, while the cellphone expert is on the South Coast. She claimed that rather than having the State subpoena the experts’ testimony, it would have been much simpler if the accused had accepted it.

Magistrate Mohamed Motala cautioned the defence.

“If you are going to put the State to unnecessary expenditure by having to prove all of this, the court would take it into account during the aggravation of sentence,” said Motala.

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za