In the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday, the State began its closing arguments in the trial involving the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith, framing the case as unprecedented due to the absence of the victim, who remains missing.
Joshlin Smith trial today: Here’s a breakdown of what happened
Prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel argued that although most trafficking cases rely on the victim’s testimony, this case could proceed because Joshlin’s disappearance and the alleged pre-arranged sale met the criteria outlined under South Africa’s Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons (PACO) Act.
The State focused on Section 11 of the Act, which outlines that when the victim is a child, proving the means of trafficking is not necessary—only the act and purpose need to be established.
The prosecution contended that Joshlin, a vulnerable child reliant on her caregivers, was reduced to a commodity.
Her alleged sale for R20,000 constituted slavery under the Act, and the suggested purpose was exploitation for body parts, a claim supported by state witness Lourentia Lombaard.
Lombaard’s Section 204 testimony stated that Joshlin was sold and she, along with co-accused Kelly Smith, Jacquen Appollis, and Steveno van Rhyn, were to share the proceeds.
The State acknowledged inconsistencies in Lombaard’s versions over time but argued that her eventual full disclosure reflected a maturing resolve to tell the truth after being incarcerated.
Judge Nathan Erasmus repeatedly emphasised that credibility and reliability were central to evaluating such witness testimony, not minor contradictions. He also clarified that despite repeated references, Ayanda—Lombaard’s partner—was not implicated by any direct evidence.
In wrapping up, the State said it had demonstrated that all three accused knew about the plan to sell Joshlin and stood to gain financially. The prosecution requested convictions on charges of trafficking and kidnapping and asked that Lombaard receive immunity if her evidence was deemed credible.
Advocate Fannie Harmse, representing Jacquen Appollis, opened his closing arguments in the afternoon.
He attempted to discredit Lombaard by pointing out timeline inconsistencies in her testimony, particularly regarding when the alleged discussions about selling Joshlin occurred.
Harmse argued that her account of Joshlin’s handover to a woman in a white Polo conflicted with the confession Appollis allegedly gave, which named Phumza Sigaqa (Ma Ka Lima) as the recipient.
Harmse claimed these were mutually exclusive accounts and therefore both could not be true. He questioned why the State would rely on a Section 204 witness if it genuinely believed Jacquen’s confession was valid.
However, Judge Erasmus reminded Harmse that his client had not presented any evidence or a defence case to support his version.
The State also highlighted contradictions in Jacquen’s own accounts—for instance, his shifting explanation of why the children did not go to school on the day of Joshlin’s disappearance.
Harmse incorrectly insisted that a version about dirty uniforms existed in early statements, which the judge debunked using the official exhibit.
Despite attempting to raise technicalities and case law to challenge the State’s interpretation of the evidence, Harmse’s presentation was marred by inconsistencies and confusion.
The judge noted the contradictions in Harmse’s argument and reminded the defence of the consequences of failing to produce a case.
Here’s what happens next in the trial-within-a-trial
Court proceedings are set to continue on Wednesday, 30 April 2025, with closing arguments from Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi for accused Steveno van Rhyn and from Kelly Smith’s legal representative, Rinesh Sivnarain. The judge has indicated that he intends to finalise the remaining arguments by the end of the day.
He plans to use the rest of Wednesday and Thursday to deliberate and write the judgment. Judgment is still expected to be delivered on Friday, 2 May 2025.
The court’s decision will determine whether the alleged confessions and witness statements presented are credible enough to convict the three accused in connection with Joshlin Smith’s disappearance.
