Courtroom drama unfolds as bail denied for Nazmie Lekay in shocking sisters' murder case
The two sisters were gunned down on Wespoort Drive.
Image: Leon Knipe
Sisters Zainab Jacobs and Gouwah Smith Newman were gunned down by their brother.
Image: Supplied.
The Mitchells Plain Magistrate’s Court this week ruled that it would not be in the interest of justice to release the second accused in the sisters killing case, Nazmie Lekay on bail, finding that the applicant failed to present compelling or exceptional circumstances to justify his release.
The court heard that the 33-year-old Lekay is married, has three minor children and is the breadwinner for his family. Despite this, the magistrate found that personal circumstances could not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.
The ruling follows the deadly shooting on 6 November 2025 in Portlands, Mitchells Plain, when Zainap Smith Jacobs and Gouwah Smith Newman were shot and killed while waiting outside a school for children to be dismissed. An innocent adult bystander and a scholar leaving school were also injured during the incident.
Before proceedings into Lekay’s bail application resumed, the court sought clarity from Ederies Smith, accused of pulling the trigger on his sisters, on whether he had secured legal representation.
Smith informed the court that he had consulted a lawyer and intended to be represented by Raymond Davies, a well-known criminal attorney. However, Davies was not present in court. Smith was granted time to arrange representation and was ordered to return to court on 17 December with his lawyer.
During the bail hearing, the court was told that Lekay was implicated by a state witness who allegedly saw the accused enter Lekay’s vehicle. A separate witness claimed to have seen Lekay drop Smith at his residence and observed him attempting to dispose of a firearm.
The State argued that, if released on bail, Lekay would likely tamper with or destroy evidence.
In delivering his ruling, the magistrate (whose name cannot me mentioned) stated: “I should consider all the relevant factors,” adding that while freedom is a precious gift, the interests of justice must prevail.
The court heard Lekay’s version that he was in the vicinity of the shooting by coincidence. He testified that he made a U-turn near the Hazeldene robots when he heard the first gunshots and that, after hearing further shots, he noticed vehicles driving erratically.
Lekay claimed that while trying to manoeuvre through traffic, he saw Smith running towards his vehicle in the rear-view mirror, carrying a child, and that Smith said he was “being shot at”. Lekay maintained that his presence was coincidental.
The magistrate rejected this version, stating that Lekay’s behaviour did not accord with coincidence. He pointed out that Lekay had pulled over while shots were being fired and questioned how Smith could identify Lekay through tinted windows if he supposedly did not know the car.
The court noted that Lekay did not question why Smith was allegedly being shot at, a factor the magistrate found concerning.
The magistrate said the court considered witness statements and a prima facie case indicating Lekay was an associate accomplice to the accused, while emphasising that the evidence would still be tested during trial.
He confirmed that he had taken into account the best interests of Lekay’s minor children and the family’s dependence on his income.
“Therefore, in the interests of justice, it is better suited that he be incarcerated. Bail denied,” the magistrate concluded.
The case was postponed to 17 December for Smith to return with his legal representation.