Judgement will be delivered on March 31 in the case in which Mandla Mandela is accused of assaulting Mthatha teacher Mlamli Ngudle.
Dressed in a grey pinstripe suit, matching tie and white shirt, a relaxed Mandela joked and shook hands with court officials before appearing before magistrate Noluthando Conjwa yesterday.
Ngudle was absent throughout the proceedings, during which both the state and defence presented their final arguments, although his wife said he was on his way.
Nearly two years ago, Ngudle took Mandela to court after the latter allegedly kicked, stomped and pistol-whipped him during a road rage-related altercation in Sprigg Street, Mthatha CBD.
Mandela has previously admitted to “slapping” Ngudle in self-defence but he denies pointing his firearm at him.
Under cross-examination last year, Mandla claimed Ngudle had charged at him with a clenched fist when he tried to reason with him after he allegedly bumped into a car belonging to a banker Mandela was meeting.
In his final arguments yesterday, Mandela’s lawyer Billy Gundelfinger urged Conjwa to throw out both charges against his client because the case was “embroidered” and the state had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
He said the state relied on probabilities as all four of the witnesses had contradicted themselves and failed to corroborate whether Mandela drew a firearm or dragged Ngudle out of his car.
A neurologist, who removed a blood clot from Ngudle’s head two months after the incident, could also not conclude what had caused it.
“It’s a case of a broken telephone my lady. He said this, I saw that, he said that. We are not dealing with probabilities, the state must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,” said Gundelfinger.
Gundelfinger, who was advised by senior attorney Sam Aarons, said Mandela had tried “desperately” to solve the dispute between the two traditional chiefs amicably but negotiations collapsed after Ngudle allegedly made exorbitant demands for money.
“Every case has a central point to it. In this case it is money, the root of all evil,” he said.
Mandela became visibly tense when Conjwa asked Gundelfinger why his client, a teetotaller, had tried to reason with a drunk Ngudle only to claim that he acted in self-defence. He replied that as a community leader, Mandela hoped to “placate” Ngudle.
During the state’s final arguments earlier, senior state prosecutor Jongikhaya Busakwe conceded there were contradictions but said they were peripheral to the crux of the case: assault and pointing a firearm.
Addressing Mandela as the “honourable accused”, Busakwe further argued that the ANC MP had been evasive and refused to answer questions under cross-examination.
But Conjwa objected, saying the disagreements could not be isolated as they formed part of the mosaic that would help the court to arrive at a fair outcome. — loyisom@dispatch.co.za
Mandla judgment due
Dressed in a grey pinstripe suit, matching tie and white shirt, a relaxed Mandela joked and shook hands with court officials before appearing before magistrate Noluthando Conjwa yesterday.
Ngudle was absent throughout the proceedings, during which both the state and defence presented their final arguments, although his wife said he was on his way.
Nearly two years ago, Ngudle took Mandela to court after the latter allegedly kicked, stomped and pistol-whipped him during a road rage-related altercation in Sprigg Street, Mthatha CBD.
Mandela has previously admitted to “slapping” Ngudle in self-defence but he denies pointing his firearm at him.
Under cross-examination last year, Mandla claimed Ngudle had charged at him with a clenched fist when he tried to reason with him after he allegedly bumped into a car belonging to a banker Mandela was meeting.
In his final arguments yesterday, Mandela’s lawyer Billy Gundelfinger urged Conjwa to throw out both charges against his client because the case was “embroidered” and the state had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
He said the state relied on probabilities as all four of the witnesses had contradicted themselves and failed to corroborate whether Mandela drew a firearm or dragged Ngudle out of his car.
A neurologist, who removed a blood clot from Ngudle’s head two months after the incident, could also not conclude what had caused it.
“It’s a case of a broken telephone my lady. He said this, I saw that, he said that. We are not dealing with probabilities, the state must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,” said Gundelfinger.
Gundelfinger, who was advised by senior attorney Sam Aarons, said Mandela had tried “desperately” to solve the dispute between the two traditional chiefs amicably but negotiations collapsed after Ngudle allegedly made exorbitant demands for money.
“Every case has a central point to it. In this case it is money, the root of all evil,” he said.
Mandela became visibly tense when Conjwa asked Gundelfinger why his client, a teetotaller, had tried to reason with a drunk Ngudle only to claim that he acted in self-defence. He replied that as a community leader, Mandela hoped to “placate” Ngudle.
During the state’s final arguments earlier, senior state prosecutor Jongikhaya Busakwe conceded there were contradictions but said they were peripheral to the crux of the case: assault and pointing a firearm.
Addressing Mandela as the “honourable accused”, Busakwe further argued that the ANC MP had been evasive and refused to answer questions under cross-examination.
But Conjwa objected, saying the disagreements could not be isolated as they formed part of the mosaic that would help the court to arrive at a fair outcome. — loyisom@dispatch.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos