Johannesburg – The State’s second witness in the trial of Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and his four co-accused conceded in the Johannesburg High Court on Monday that he had not recorded any description of the first accused’s face in his statement but insisted he was certain of the man he had watched and later identified.
Christiaan Frederick Sheppard, who told the court last week he had kept a property under observation in on 17 April 2024, was cross-examined by Advocate Riaan Gissing for accused No 1, Musa Kekana.
Gissing pressed the Sheppard on identification.
He had testified that he watched a white Hyundai i20 arrive at the property and later saw the same driver leave in a Mercedes Benz, recognising him partly by a mustard-coloured long-sleeved shirt.
Gissing put it to him that he was speculating and that he had omitted facial description from his statement.
But Sheppard held to his account.
“Perhaps I didn’t put that information in the statement, but I had more than enough time to observe the driver,” he told the court.
He said the vehicle had been moving slowly, that he saw the driver through the windscreen rather than the tinted side windows, and that he could make out both facial features and clothing.
He told the Court that his attention was initially drawn to the Mercedes Benz because of the first accused’s mustard top.
He then satisfied himself that it carried the same occupants.
Shown his statement, Sheppard confirmed he had typed it on the day of the incident, 17 April 2024, and accepted that the only detail he had recorded was the mustard top, with nothing about the driver’s face.
“It’s a mistake on my behalf that I didn’t put the facial description in the statement,” he said, maintaining that the person who entered the property was the same person who left it, and the same man he saw during the arrest.
Gissing put Kekana’s version to Sheppard, that he was not the driver of the Hyundai i20, that the vehicle belonged to a tenant who arrived in it, and that Kekana and a second man, Tau, had reversed the Mercedes Benz out and driven to a friend’s house, where they were arrested.
Sheppard rejected the version, saying he had observed Kekana driving the Hyundai i20 and then the Viano.
He said he followed the vehicle to the scene of the arrest, stopping about 60 metres away and remaining in his vehicle until the suspects were secured.
On the conduct of the arrest, Sheppard said no search and no questioning took place in his presence, and that rights were not explained while he was there, but that the suspects had by then already been detained.
He said he had not seen any shots fired, though Gissing put it to him that at least two shots had been fired by traffic officers.
He said he saw Kekana lying on his stomach and he saw no blood on the upper body.
He told the Court he was not aware of any ambulance at the scene.
Kekana, he said, had told him he had recently been discharged from hospital and was unwell.
No other defence counsel cross-examined the witness.
In re-examination, the State established that Sheppard has 26 years of experience and that observation of vehicles and possible suspects makes up the bulk of his work.
The trial-within-a-trial will determine whether the evidence relating to Kekana’s arrest may be admitted before the main trial resumes.
