Court resumed on Day 28 with Advocate Fannie Harmse leading Jacquen Appollis through his evidence-in-chief in the trial-within-a-trial.
Joshlin Smith trial today: Here’s a breakdown of what happened
The focus was on distinguishing which parts of Jacquen’s alleged confession he claims are truthful and which, according to him, were coerced or fabricated under duress.
Jacquen agreed that Kelly Smith made specific statements about “Groot Maak Ma” (Natasha Andrews) and Joshlin’s father (Jose Amke) the Sunday before the disappearance.
He confirmed details about his and Steveno van Rhyn’s movements and Lourentia Lombaard’s visit to smoke drugs, but firmly denied that Kelly instructed him to take Joshlin to Phumza Sigaqa, known as “Makalima,” as part of a child-selling plot.
Under state cross-examination, Jacquen was asked why he did not disclose alleged torture or police threats earlier, despite having legal representation and participating in media interviews.
He claimed that the threats remained active and that police officers involved in the alleged assaults were part of his court escort, which intimidated him into silence.
He illustrated his description of the torture with a baton, showing how he was allegedly beaten repeatedly while wrapped in a flag.
However, the State noted that no such injuries were recorded on his J88 medical form. Jacquen admitted to fear and said he only told Kelly Smith about the alleged abuse.
The State highlighted contradictions in Jacquen’s testimony. He previously said he arrived at the Sea Border offices around lunchtime, but under cross-examination, he shifted this to between 16:00 and 17:00 —a timeline he admitted was influenced by hearing other the testimony of Sergeant Dawid Fortuin under cross-examination by his lawyer.
The judge challenged him on this, pointing out how his shifting accounts appeared tailored to fit the evidence already presented by the State.
Jacquen admitted he made a mistake, but the State argued he made multiple misstatements.
Another inconsistency emerged regarding his alleged presence during the police visit to Makalima’s house.
Jacquen claimed he went along, while previous testimony and evidence from the State suggested he was left behind in a boardroom.
The State questioned why Jacquen had not corrected this narrative earlier during the testimonies of Sgt. Fortuin and Captain Lombard.
Jacquen insisted he had informed his lawyer during Fortuin’s cross-examination, but the judge raised doubts about the reliability of this explanation.
Further contradictions arose regarding who assaulted Jacquen—first only an Xhosa man, then both an Xhosa and coloured man—and whether he saw Captain Lombard or Sgt. Fortuin on 4 March 2024.
Jacquen maintained that neither questioned him that day, contradicting both officers’ earlier testimonies.
Judge Nathan Erasmus intervened with a sharp critique of Jacquen’s evolving narrative.
He presented a hypothetical scenario suggesting that for Fortuin and Lombard to claim they interviewed Jacquen and Steveno—despite knowing they’d be subject to intense scrutiny—they would have to voluntarily “take the punch.”
Jacquen acknowledged this didn’t make sense and conceded that the individuals who allegedly assaulted him were not the ones who testified in court.
Here’s what happens next in the trial-within-a-trial
Proceedings were adjourned earlier than scheduled due to Judge Erasmus’s deteriorating health. The matter is set to resume on Tuesday, 15 April 2025, at 10:00.
Cross-examination of Jacquen Appollis will continue, with Advocate Harmse unable to consult his client over the weekend since he remains under cross-examination.
The trial-within-a-trial, now in its final stages, is expected to proceed with closing arguments once cross-examinations are complete. The judge is expected to deliver a ruling on the admissibility of the confessions from both Jacquen and Steveno later next week. This decision will determine whether the statements made to police form part of the evidence in the main trial regarding Joshlin Smith’s disappearance.
