By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The State in Joshlin Smith trial contended that the Western Cape Division of the High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay should convict the accused of Trafficking in Persons (TIP) and kidnapping.
The trial is regarded as a test case and the decision herein is of utmost importance for the creation of sound jurisprudence in South Africa.
The courtroom was filled with palpable tension as the prosecution and defence elaborated on the reliability of key State witness, Lourentia “Renz” Lombaard, whose Section 204 testimony is central to the prosecution’s case.
The State argued that the court cannot merely look at the evidence of Lombaard in isolation. Despite criticism of her testimony, there is a ‘golden thread’ of truth running through it, as well as additional evidence that corroborates her story. This is the gist of the prosecution’s heads of argument, which was heard in the Western Cape High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay on Tuesday, 29 April 2025.
The State wants Judge Nathan Erasmus to convict the three accused: Racquel Smith, also known as Kelly, the mother of missing Joshlin, Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn, on counts of kidnapping and human trafficking originating from Joshlin’s disappearance.
The central figure in this case is Smith, Joshlin’s mother, who is accused of masterminding the child’s disappearance.
The accused face life imprisonment if convicted on the count of human trafficking.
Smith, her boyfriend Appollis, also known as Boeta, and Van Rhyn face charges stemming from Joshlin’s disappearance on 19 February 2024 from the Middelpos informal settlement in Saldanha Bay.
The three, who have pleaded not guilty, have denied the allegations against them. The State alleges that the accused “sold, delivered or exchanged” Joshlin, a Grade 1 pupil at Diazville Primary, for money.
The only piece of solid evidence the State has against the three is that of State witness Lombaard, who was initially accused number four, who detailed how Joshlin’s mother allegedly plotted to sell the six-year-old to a sangoma for R20,000.
Appollis and Van Rhyn appeared to have implicated themselves when they said Joshlin was taken to a supposed sangoma on the day she went missing. Judge Erasmus ruled that the accused’s confessions in the trial were admissible and could be used as evidence against them.
The State further argued that common purpose existed on Sunday, 18 February 2024, before the commission of the offence, and persisted throughout its entirety, particularly on 19 February when Joshlin disappeared.
Defence lawyer Advocate Fanie Harmse, representing Appollis, who is accused number one seized upon what he termed “material contradictions” in Lombaard’s testimony.
A particular point of contention was an inconsistency regarding when Lombaard supposedly overheard a conversation between Boeta and Kelly concerning Joshlin.
While initially claiming the conversation took place on February 18, she later revised her account to the morning of the day Joshlin vanished.
“That is a material discrepancy,” Harmse asserted, further questioning Lombaard’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her various statements regarding the alleged abduction.
Judge Erasmus acknowledged these concerns, noting that certain inconsistencies existed within Renz’s statements in contrast to the evidence provided by the defence.
State prosecutor Advocate Zelda Swanepoel remained steadfast in her position, countering the defence’s claims by arguing that while minor discrepancies may exist, the essence of Lombaard’s testimony held firm, corroborated by additional witnesses and physical evidence.
She referred to Nico Steven Coetzee’s testimony, where he recalled Lombaard’s disclosure of a plan to sell Joshlin back in August 2023.
Coetzee detailed the same R20,000 figure and motivations for the anticipated sale, elements that appeared to resonate throughout Lombaard’s account and other evidence moments later.
Evidence presented to the court included a video from social media, wherein van Rhyn described activities on the morning Joshlin disappeared, alleging that he, Kelly, and Lombaard had been smoking mandrax.
This narrative mirrors Lombaard’s version and was corroborated through multiple accounts, including van Rhyn’s own statements.
Looking ahead, the courtroom is set to witness the defence strategies of van Rhyn and Kelly, who are expected to challenge the assertion by Swanepoel that they acted with shared intent and awareness of Joshlin’s exploitation.
Judge Erasmus is expected to hand down his ruling on Friday after 34 days of testimony and cross-examination.