Proceedings in the Phala Phala farm burglary trial were disrupted after the defence raised concerns about the accuracy of the Oshiwambo interpreter.
The trial resumed on Monday at the Modimolle Regional Court, where the alleged mastermind, Imanuwela David, along with Froliana Joseph and her brother, Ndilinasho David Joseph, face charges of housebreaking, theft, and conspiracy to commit housebreaking with intent to steal.
David faces an additional charge of money laundering.
The case stems from the theft of $580 000, hidden in a couch at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
Interpreter dispute interrupts Phala Phala trial
On Monday, the trial-within-a-trial was cut short after the accused complained about the inaccurate interpretation of Oshiwambo, a language spoken by the Ovambo people in parts of Namibia.
An interpreter has been facilitating communication for David and the Joseph siblings throughout the proceedings.
David’s legal representative, Advocate Koena Matala, told the court that his client was concerned the interpreter was not accurately conveying what witnesses were saying, and this “creates a problem”.
“It makes him not to understand because of what the interpreter is saying to him. So [it] seems [there’s a] language barrier between the two,” he said.
ALSO READ: Phala Phala trial: Witness details why he hid cash in Ramaphosa’s couch
Advocate Relleng Masipa, representing the Joseph siblings, also indicated that his clients shared similar frustrations.
“They say some of the things that he is saying are not interpreted,” Masipa said.
Magistrate Peter Manthate responded jokingly that he unfortunately did not know the language himself.
Phala Phala trial postponed
After a brief adjournment, Manthate stressed that it was crucial for both the witnesses and the accused to fully understand the proceedings.
“I’m not sure if it’s a question of being fatigued, or actually it’s a question of the language itself,” the magistrate said.
He explained that he would adjourn the matter to consult the senior court interpreter to “see if she can help us under the circumstances”.
“Unfortunately, she is on leave, but nonetheless, I have contacted her and also directed her to seek an alternative interpreter.
READ MORE: Will Ramaphosa testify in Phala Phala trial? NPA clears the air
“I don’t want to risk by proceeding with this matter and at the end of the day or the whole trial, the matter may be set aside on the basis of a very simple thing that this court could have addressed,” Manthate added.
The magistrate further indicated that the trial would resume on Wednesday, instead of Tuesday as initially planned, due to an electricity outage expected to affect the court’s recording systems.
Witness statements
The state has faced several setbacks since the trial began.
Two witnesses — whose identities are protected by a court order — have already contradicted their earlier statements to the police.
The first witness, who allegedly transported the accused after the burglary at the president’s farm, was declared hostile after changing his version in court.
He claimed that he gave his affidavit under duress.
As a result, Manthate ruled that the prosecution could proceed under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which allows the cross-examination of a hostile witness.
READ MORE: ‘He broke the rules’ – Phala Phala farm manager says suspect not allowed in president’s house
The second witness, another driver who had transported the accused, testified that he had never made a formal statement to the police.
He stated that officers presented him with a prepared affidavit that he could neither read nor understand, and that he was forced to sign it.
This prompted the state to apply for him to be declared a hostile witness and to request a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether his affidavit was made voluntarily and whether it could be admitted as evidence.
Witness claims assault
Earlier in Monday’s proceedings, the state had called a second police officer to testify following last week’s appearance by the investigating officer.
The detective, who was present when the second driver allegedly gave his statement, testified that it was the investigating officer who took down the affidavit and posed the questions.
She testified that she assisted by translating for her colleague, as the driver spoke limited English.
“The colonel at some point was asking him [the driver] directly, and he would answer him directly, but besides that, I do not recall everything that happened on that day.”
However, the witness — also testifying in court on Monday — claimed that he was assaulted and coerced into signing the statement.
He alleged that a plastic bag was placed over his head and that he was threatened with arrest.
The officer strongly denied these allegations.
“The [investigating officer] typed his statement on his laptop, and after that, we left. We did not take him anywhere.
“So I do not know of his arrest, I don’t know of people taking him and putting plastic on his head, I do not know any of those things.”
NOW READ: Phala Phala housekeeper says she doesn’t know if accused entered main house
About the Author
