The court rules that evidence of what happened during the judicial investigation of activist Nyoka is provisionally admissible

The evidence of Caiphus Nyoka’s younger sister about what happened on the night her brother was allegedly murdered by former apartheid police officers in August 1987 is provisionally admissible.

The Pretoria High Court, sitting at the Benoni Magistrate Court, ruled on Thursday that not allowing the state to direct the evidence in that area amounts to suppressing crucial and essential evidence.

The sister, who according to the court cannot be named, has previously testified in the trial of the three former police officers accused of Nyoka’s murder in 1987.

The trio – Leon Louis van den Berg, 72, Abram Engelbrecht, 60, and Pieter Stander, 61 – pleaded not guilty to the murder. The State’s position is that they acted in furtherance of a common purpose in committing murder.

This is one of the cases referred to the National Prosecution Service by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

At the time of his murder in 1987, Nyoka was a student activist in Daveyton on the East Rand and a member of the Congress of South African Students.

Last month, 65-year-old Johan Marais, who was stationed at Police Unit 6 in Dunnottar in Ekurhuleni, pleaded guilty to Nyoka’s murder.

During the inquest hearing, Stander and his lawyer gave self-incriminating evidence JP Okes had objected to the prosecution leading the evidence at the hearing.

Judge Mahomed Ismail said in his ruling that the witness hinted that she attended her brother’s hearing every day.

Nyoka’s younger sister was about to testify about the transcript of what happened at the inquest when Okes objected.

“This objection was based on the concept of a witness’s right to refuse to answer an incriminating question.

“To this end, it was submitted that the three suspects (Stander) were not represented in the judicial inquiry proceedings and that the presiding magistrate failed to assess him on his right to self-incriminate,” he ruled.

The judge said in his ruling that he was told that much of the inquest was missing and that the transcripts were incomplete. He said this was understandable as it has been 30 years since the death.

“These documents may have been lost or deliberately destroyed, as told me by Dr. Rousseau, who testified before me that tons of documents were destroyed relating to the activities of the security forces before the 1994 elections,” he said in his ruling.

He ruled that the evidence from the inquest was crucial to the trial.

TimesLIVE