Defence questions reliability of key witness in Joshlin Smith case

The defence has argued that key testimony against the three accused in the Joshlin Smith case is riddled with contradictions, calling into question the reliability of the State’s main witness, Lourentia Lombaard, who testified under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Advocate Fanie Harmse, representing Jacquen “Boeta” Appollis (Accused 1), told the Vredenburg Regional Court that Lombaard’s various accounts, her confession, Section 204 statement, and oral evidence in chief contradicted each other on several points.

“I submit that the two versions — the 204 statement and the 204 witness’s evidence are mutually exclusive. They can’t both be true,” said Harmse.

Joshlin Smith, a six-year-old girl from Middelpos in Saldanha Bay, was reported missing on February 19, 2024.

Her mother, Racquel “Kelly” Smith (Accused 3), left her in the care of Appollis on that day. Co-accused Steveno van Rhyn (Accused 2) was also allegedly involved in what the State argues was a plan to traffic the child.

Lombaard, who initially faced charges herself, turned State's witness. She testified that there had been a discussion about selling Joshlin.

However, Harmse highlighted inconsistencies in her timeline: she initially said the conversation occurred on Sunday, but under cross-examination, she admitted it may have been Monday morning. “That is a material conflict,” said Harmse.

Further contradictions included whether Appollis walked with Kelly as she allegedly took Joshlin to a white VW Polo for handover, and whether Kelly had acted alone or in agreement with Appollis.

According to Lombaard, when Kelly mentioned her plan to Appollis, he dismissed her, saying he didn’t want to hear her “stories”, to which Kelly replied she would do it herself. Harmse argued this showed a lack of common purpose between Accused 1 and Accused 3.

The defence also referenced Captain Wesley Lombard’s testimony that Accused 1 and 2 mentioned a woman known as “Maka Lima” (Phumza Sigaqa) in their police statements — a claim the State dismissed as a cover-up.

Harmse questioned why the State would discredit these statements yet insist on a trial-within-a-trial to determine their admissibility.

The case continues to draw widespread attention as the trial enters its final arguments phase.

mandilakhe.tshwete@inl.co.za