Najwa lawyer disputes evidence
2008-10-21 12:10
Cape Town - Details of an earlier stabbing incident should never have been admitted, a defence lawyer in the trial of murder accused Najwa Petersen told the Cape High Court in closing arguments on Tuesday.
Johan Engelbrecht, SC, said the incident in April 2006 was not relevant and would not have been allowed to be admitted had he been defence counsel at the time.
Engelbrecht is Petersen's fourth lawyer since her arrest in June 2007.
Engelbrecht objected strongly to Judge Siraj Desai's description of the incident where Najwa Petersen stabbed her husband in the neck as an "assault".
She stands accused with three others of murdering theatre and music legend Taliep Petersen on December 16, 2006.
"The furthest we can go is to say the deceased was injured by an object the accused had in her hand," he said, after saying Desai should not have allowed the evidence to be admitted earlier.
After a moment's pause the judge said: "That's a ridiculous way to put it."
But Engelbrecht maintained that Petersen was ill at the time and having seizures, and did not know what she was doing.
Closing arguments were continuing from Monday after evidence was wrapped up on August 21 in the trial of Petersen and the three co-accused.
Petersen, dressed in a dark green suit jacket and matching headscarf with white polka dots, sat in the dock dock alongside co-accused Jefferson Snyders, Abdoer Emjedi and Waheed Hassen.
State prosecutors Shireen Riley and Susan Galloway claim that Petersen masterminded the murder and hired the three.
Engelbrecht maintains it was a botched robbery by the three and that Petersen was framed by state witness Fahiem Hendricks, who owed her R240 000 for diamonds she had given him to sell for her.
He pointed out discrepancies in Hendricks' testimony, including Petersen's reasons for the murder and the date he allegedly received a R70 000 payment for the hit.
"If all the evidence was taken together it would weigh against Hendricks like a ton of bricks," he said.