There’s been a ding-dong battle in the Randburg Magistrate’s Court on Thursday: Lawyers acting on behalf of Julius Malema picked apart the testimony of Johannes Venter earlier this morning. The police official has lodged an assault charge against the EFF leader after the pair were engaged in a physical altercation back in 2018.
Julius Malema vs Johannes Venter assault case
Malema, alongside Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, was seen pushing Venter during a heated argument at Winnie Mandela’s memorial service. After he was denied entrance to the venue, Juju tried to argue his case – but things soured almost immediately.
Venter took to the stand on Wednesday to share his version of events, but his testimony has been forensically analysed by Advocate Lawrence Hodes today. He’s representing the EFF leadership in court and wasted little time in routinely poking holes in the prosecution’s argument. Hodes pointed to several claims that he believes are ‘contradictory’.
How Johannes Venter’s testimony has been questioned:
- Venter had insisted that he would never have allowed Malema’s vehicle in because ‘it wasn’t part of any convoy’.
- The cop claims the vehicle didn’t have a permit for the cemetery – but an ‘item of accreditation’ is seen on the dashboard.
- Venter says he never saw any accreditation – despite what’s shown in the video played to the court.
- The official states that he was the only one trying to stop the vehicle, and was ‘the only white man’ there at the time.
- Venter previously denied ‘pushing Malema’s vehicle’, saying he was trying to find his balance after being shoved during the alleged assault. The police officer has since stated that he was trying to keep the vehicle from entering the cemetery ‘at all costs’.
— Hlubi (@Nomahlubij) October 29, 2020
Who is Julius Malema’s lawyer?
Hodes, and the rest of Julius Malema’s legal team, were unimpressed with their adversary in the dock. In fact, the advocate publicly stated that he’d ask the court to find that Venter is ‘making his evidence up’ on the spot:
“Your statement says you were not going to let those people in. Then it became the vehicle. Then it became accreditation. Now it is accreditation or not – they weren’t going to get in. I am going to ask the court to draw an adverse inference against you for having shifted evidence like that.”
“Once they drove in they were dropped off to a carpet that leads to the VIP marquee. They didn’t drive up to any parking of any sort. I am going to ask the court to find that you are making up your evidence as you go along.”
Read the original article on The South African