As the trial-within-a-trial continued into its 30th day, accused Steveno van Rhyn remained on the stand at the Western Cape High Court, facing intense cross-examination over claims that his confession in the Joshlin Smith case was extracted under torture.
Joshlin Smith trial today: Here’s a breakdown of what happened
Van Rhyn has maintained throughout his testimony that he was kidnapped, assaulted, and coerced by men he later believed to be police officers. On Wednesday, he elaborated on how he was taken to Sea Border police offices on 4 March 2024, where he claims he witnessed co-accused Jacquen Appollis suspended upside down before being subjected to the same treatment.
He described being forced to lie on his back, handcuffed with his knees pulled to his chest, then suspended between two chairs with an aluminium pipe placed under his legs.
While in this position, Van Rhyn claimed he was assaulted and suffocated with a black plastic bag each time he insisted he had no knowledge of Joshlin’s whereabouts.
According to Van Rhyn, the abuse did not end there. He testified that after giving his statement, he and Appollis were taken to the home of Phumza Sigaqa—known as “Makalima”—who was allegedly tortured as well. He described her as being handcuffed and having a black plastic bag placed over her head at Sea Border offices.
But under cross-examination by Senior State Prosecutor Advocate Zelda Swanepoel, Van Rhyn’s version of events came under sharp scrutiny. Swanepoel challenged him directly:
“I’m going to put it to you that this whole story of getting a lift in a bakkie and being tortured in Jacobsbaai is not true. That will be our argument. Do you want to comment?”
Van Rhyn simply responded, “It is the truth.”
Judge Nathan Erasmus also intervened frequently, offering guidance to ensure that Van Rhyn, who did not pass Grade 6, fully understood the questions. Erasmus instructed the prosecutor to simplify her phrasing, noting that Van Rhyn’s low level of education required clear and concise communication to ensure fairness.
In one notable moment, Judge Erasmus questioned the logistics of Van Rhyn’s account, particularly the claim that someone standing outside a bakkie managed to pinch his testicles.
“Let’s accept that he must have been standing on the bumper or the toolbar. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to reach your testicles,” the judge said, expressing doubt about the practicality of the scenario.
Confusion also arose over the timeline and route taken by the bakkie Van Rhyn claims he was transported in.
His attorney, Nobahle Mkabayi, attempted to clarify the route her client had previously explained, but Judge Erasmus countered that his notes supported the state’s interpretation of events.
“I don’t know if you and I were in the same court yesterday,” Erasmus said to Mkabayi.
Despite maintaining his version under tough questioning, inconsistencies in Van Rhyn’s narrative were repeatedly pointed out, leaving the credibility of his testimony in question as the trial-within-a-trial nears its end.
Here’s what happens next in the trial-within-a-trial
Steveno van Rhyn remains under cross-examination, and the court is expected to continue testing the credibility of his testimony when proceedings resume. His allegations of torture and coercion, if believed, could result in the exclusion of his confession from the main trial.
However, the mounting inconsistencies and practical challenges to his account may work in the state’s favour.
Once Van Rhyn concludes his testimony, both legal teams will prepare to deliver closing arguments in the trial-within-a-trial. Judge Nathan Erasmus is anticipated to deliver a ruling shortly thereafter on whether the confessions by Van Rhyn and Jacquen Appollis can be admitted as evidence.
The decision will have major implications for the trajectory of the main trial, where Van Rhyn, Appollis, and Kelly Smith face serious charges in connection with the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith.