Lourentia Lombaard burst into tears while being questioned by the judge.
Lourentia Lombaard, the state’s star witness in the kidnapping and human trafficking trial of Joslin Smith, had to be helped from the stand in the Western Cape high court on Tuesday after she suddenly felt “dizzy” during cross-examination by the defence attorney for Kelly Smith, mother of Joslin.
Attorney Rinesh Sivnarain was questioning Lombaard about the inconsistencies in her confession statement, which was made before she turned state witness last year and subsequently made another statement.
Lombaard last week told the court that she had made “mistakes” in her confession statement, because she did not trust the police officer who took the statement, and she was still under the influence of drugs. She had, however, last taken drugs two to three days earlier, as she herself admitted under cross-examination.
Sivnarain on Tuesday asked if there was anything Lombaard had forgotten when she made the confession statement. At this point, she turned to the judge and said: “My lord, can I ask, I need to get some fresh air, my head is feeling a little dizzy”.
Lombaard was excused, and as she was being held by her arms and led out of the hall in which the court is sitting, Erasmus said: “This is not the first time, when it came to crunch time, that the witness became unwell.”
Lombaard also had to be excused last week during cross-examination and attended to by medics, but returned to the stand the following day.
The latest incident took place late on Tuesday afternoon, with the judge intimating that because he had read the confession statement, he knew where Sivnarain was going with his questioning. “I knew you were going to go for the jugular before the end of the day,” he said.
He also said: “I won’t have my court time being manipulated, not by counsel, not by witnesses.”
Earlier in the day, combative cross-examination took place that prompted a rebuke from the bench, when defence attorney Nobahle Mkabayi pressed Lombaard with seemingly misleading interpretations of testimony.
Erasmus scolded Mkabayi several times during her questioning of Lombaard, accusing the lawyer of taking statements out of context and misrepresenting evidence.
Mkabayi appeared intent on distancing her client, Stefano van Rhyn, from events that allegedly unfolded on Sunday 18 February, when, according to Lombaard, Smith, “discussed” with her partner, accused one Jacquen “Boeta” Appollis, that she would be selling her daughter to a sangoma for R20 000.
Lombaard overheard this, she said, and Van Rhyn must have too, because Smith was speaking loudly.
According to Lombaard’s testimony, both her and Van Rhyn were offered money for their silence – R1 000 for Lombaard and R1 200 for Van Rhyn.
Joslin, who was six at the time, has not been seen since Monday 19 February 2024.
According to Lombaard’s evidence-in-chief, she saw her friend Smith — with whom she regularly “smoked drugs” — walking Joslin to a car in the area of the Smith family’s shack in the Middelpos area of Saldanha on the Sunday, to receive payment for the child. The handing over of Joslin to the sangoma was only to take place on Monday.
In dispute was that Van Rhyn was at Smith and Appollis’s shack, along with Lombaard, when Smith said she had orchestrated the sale of Joslin.
Also in dispute was Lombaard being able to see the sangoma — a black woman with “white dots” on her face, on that Sunday — given that she was about 80m from the car.
Mkabayi told Lombaard that she was implicating Van Rhyn in the disappearance of the child because, as per her testimony on Monday, she “did not like the look of him” (he was an unsavoury character), and because he had implicated Lombaard’s partner, Ayanda, and Lombaard in the child’s disappearance.
Lombaard denied she was implicating Van Rhyn in anything, saying again that he was present when the sale of Joslin was mentioned by Smith, at the shack Smith shared with Appollis, Joslin and the child’s two siblings.
Mkabayi’s line of questioning irked Erasmus when she took Lombaard’s prior testimony out of context, more than once. Mkabayi insisted Lombaard had different versions of how many people were in Smith’s shack when Smith allegedly said she had sold Joslin.
Mkabayi pressed on by saying that, according to Lombaard’s testimony, Joslin and her older brother were in the shack, so both children must have known Joslin was to be sold.
It took Erasmus to put the matter into context. He said that Lombaard had said in her testimony that Joslin was playing outside the shack at the time and her brother was in another room. Mkabayi had not added these details, said Erasmus, and disallowed the question “unless you put it in context”.
But the attorney said the same thing again, prompting Erasmus to respond that he was not going to repeat what he had said.
Mkabayi pushed again, saying the same thing, to which a visibly irritated Erasmus said: “No, Miss Mkabayi, I have already ruled on it. She never said that … and I’ve ruled on it.”
Mkabayi started: “With due respect …” but Erasmus cut her off, saying there would be a five-minute adjournment, adding, “Let’s speak to the facts as they are, on record.”
Erasmus has repeatedly warned defence lawyers to take into account during cross-examination that Lombaard, who has a grade seven education, is “not a sophisticated witness”.
After the break, Mkabayi asked her what clothes Van Rhyn was wearing on the Sunday in questions, and Lombaard said she couldn’t remember.
Lombaard couldn’t remember because Van Rhyn was not present, said Mkabayi. She said Lombaard was not high at the time but still could not remember what Van Rhyn was wearing.
“I wasn’t watching his clothes, I was watching his face,” replied Lombaard.
Upon further questioning by Mkabayi about what took place in the “alleged discussions” between the four adults, and what Van Rhyn specifically said, Lombaard replied: “He agreed that he did not want to tell the police anything and he would accept the R1 200 Kelly would give him [for his silence].”
Mkabayi said this was not “input”. “Did he bring any ideas?”
Lombaard replied in the negative.
“You cannot say he was part of the discussions if he didn’t bring any ideas or any opinion,” said Mkabayi. “What is your comment to that?”
Responded Lombaard: “He was part of the discussion because he said he would accept the R1 200 and would not tell the police anything.”
“There was nothing my client had to tell the police,” said Mkabayi. “My client has seen nothing, my client has heard nothing.”
It was allegedly agreed that no one would say anything to the police and Smith would contact the police to report Joslin missing.
“You are lying to this court,” said Mkabayi.
“It’s the truth,” said Lombaard.
During previous cross-examination by advocate Fanie Harmse, acting for Appollis, and in her evidence-in-chief, Lombaard had said she then left Smith’s house and had not returned on that day.
But on Tuesday, during cross-examination by Mkabayi, she said she did return.
“I returned to Kelly’s house to find out further what the plan was about Joslin, because I was curious.”
Lombaard said she had changed her version because she was confused by Mkabayi’s question.
“I was very clear with you. Very clear … Don’t try to be smart here,” said the attorney.
Erasmus agreed that Mkabayi had been clear in her question, and referred to his notes about Lombaard saying she had not returned to Smith’s house, and had returned to her own shack.
“So why is your evidence different [today]?” he asked.
“I was unsure,” responded Lombaard.
“Unsure of what?” asked Mkabayi.
“Of the questions you asked now,” said Lombaard.
Mkabayi’s cross-examination then turned to the morning of the Monday that Joslin went missing. Lombaard had said in her evidence-in-chief that, on that morning, she saw all of the accused, and Smith’s children, at Smith’s shack.
“You are lying when you say my client was there,” said Mkabayi.
“He was there,” replied Lombaard.
Mkabayi said that in his plea explanation, even Appollis had said Van Rhyn was not there.
“Boeta is lying,” said Lombaard.
Van Rhyn admitted to being at the family’s shack on that Monday but said it was at around 1pm in the afternoon.
Mkabayi then said she had an affidavit from Smith’s oldest son, who is about 10 years old, and, in that statement, he didn’t mention seeing Van Rhyn.
“The only person he mentioned [being at the Smith shack] was Aunty Rens [Lombaard].”
Responded Lombaard: “As I said, Stefano was outside and [the child] was sitting in the bed [in another room].”
The trial continues.
Discussion about this post