Angy Peter defence say it is a “political case”
Angy Peter continued giving evidence in her defence as the trial continued on 19 June. She told the court that after she was arrested for the murder and kidnapping of Rowan Du Preez in October 2012, she was arrested three more times on other murder and kidnapping charges. None of these charges were ever brought to trial.
Peter, along with her husband Isaac Mbadu, is accused of the kidnapping and murder of Rowan Du Preez in October 2012. Azola Dayimani and Christopher Dina are also charged with the kidnapping and assault of Du Preez.
Peter testified that she had suffered two severe asthma attacks the week of the murder. She was treated at a local clinic on both the Monday and Tuesday evenings. After the second asthma attack, she was transferred to Tygerberg Hospital where she remained until Wednesday evening.
Peter said she physically would not have been able to carry out the assault she is accused of, as she weighed over 100kg at the time. “Walking around at night and fighting is something that would have been impossible,” Peter said.
In outlining the week preceding the alleged assault, Advocate William King said Peter had appeared on E-tv that Monday, where she gave an interview on mob justice. King believes Peter has been framed by the police.
“The aim of this evidence is to show that she was the face of the Social Justice Coalition inquiry [into policing]. She was quite literally putting her face in the line of fire,” said King. “We are establishing that this is a political case.”
Judge Robert Henney allowed King to continue his line of questioning, but said it “did not mean anything” to him, and he could not consider it evidence.
Peter testified she had been arrested in April 2013, May 2013, and August 2013 for various charges of kidnapping and murder. Following her second arrest, Peter said she was placed under house arrest and told she could not enter Khayelitsha, because she had been deemed a dangerous person.
Henney again questioned King’s argument when King raised doubt about witness Asavela Ziki’s character. When Ziki gave evidence for the prosecution, she stated that she had seen Peter and her husband in the street assaulting Du Preez.
Peter acknowledged that she knew Ziki “quite well” as she had helped Peter organise a group to combat teen pregnancy, called the “Seven Bs” (Books before boys because boys bring babies).
Peter said Ziki had lied, had affairs with older men, and drank excessively. She was forced to kick Ziki out of the Seven Bs when Ziki dropped out of high school, one of the group’s membership requirements. Ziki had also abandoned Peter’s children while watching them, and had stolen money from Peter. Peter testified that Ziki “had motive to lie.”
Judge Henney told King he was introducing a character debate, and had “opened the door” for the prosecutor, Advocate Phistus Pelesa, to question Peter’s character.
King responded, “I have no reason to fear that the State will accuse her of having previous convictions. I have no reason to fear the State will accuse her of being a drunken slut.”
During the afternoon cross-examination, the prosecution began to draw into question Peter’s character.
Pelesa suggested that Peter had partaken in a “mob justice investigation”, something she had publicly opposed. Peter refused to admit explicitly that she had been investigating the crime and taking the law into her own hands. She stated she was only following a suspicion.
The cross-examination continues 23 June.
Dodgy people are suing us. Please support us by contributing to our legal costs and helping us to publish news that matters.
Next: Family of 13-year-old take legal steps to compel SAPS
Previous: Farm workers claim right to strike
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.