The sixth day of proceedings in the ongoing Joshlin Smith trial opened with the testimony of Constable Refilwe Sekhobe.
Constable Refilwe Sekhobe testimony unpacked
She explained her role in interviewing a key figure in the case, Lourentia Lombaard, who initially asked for time to arrange childcare before participating in the discussion.
According to Sekhobe, she conducted the interview in Afrikaans, and Lombaard appeared jittery, frequently scratching her arms and legs. Sekhobe recalled that Lombaard mentioned she had not yet taken any drugs that day. She testified that she learned about Lombaard’s suspected drug use from a prior interview with Jacquen Appollis.
After concluding Lombaard’s statement, Sekhobe verified its contents with her, administered the oath, and obtained Lombaard’s signature.
Sekhobe then briefed Sergeant Milstein on a name Lombaard had mentioned, someone referred to only as “Steffie.” Sekhobe said her involvement in the case primarily involved taking statements and assisting search parties in the neighbourhood to ascertain whether anyone had seen Joshlin.
She recounted meeting Steveno van Rhyn on 22 February 2024, alongside Sergeant Milstein, shortly after receiving a phone call indicating Steveno’s whereabouts.
Once they reached him, search and rescue personnel were already speaking with Steveno. He confirmed he had been at Kelly Smith and Appollis’ home when Joshlin disappeared and claimed he saw Lombaard leave with Joshlin, never to return.
He also suggested that Ayanda, Lombaard’s partner, may have sold Joshlin to a sangoma. According to Sekhobe, Steveno did not make a formal statement that day because he was displaying changes in mood, ranging from sudden laughter to shouting, which Sekhobe believed might have been influenced by drug use.
Sekhobe stated that law enforcement attempted to investigate the sangoma lead, but no specific identities were provided by Steveno.
They also searched Ayanda’s residence but found no sign of Joshlin. She told the court that Steveno was eventually arrested on 29 February 2024 and brought to the police station, where Sergeant Milstein was interviewing him.
Due to concurrent demands on Milstein’s time, Captain Chetty and Sekhobe took charge of recording Steveno’s statement in Milstein’s office.
Steveno’s mood was calmer than before, and Sekhobe opted to use a laptop because, as she noted, Steveno had a tendency to speak at length.
Sekhobe remarked on a point of interest regarding Steveno’s statements: on 22 February, he had claimed Joshlin left with Lombaard, yet on 29 February, he said he had been seated inside Kelly Smith’s shack and could not see children playing outside.
She indicated her observation that he might not have directly witnessed Lombaard departing with Joshlin.
In cross-examination by Steveno’s lawyer, Sekhobe confirmed she recorded his statement in the evening, under instructions from Sergeant Milstein.
She had no information about the manner in which Steveno arrived at the station or how long he had been talking to Milstein before her arrival.
She testified that Steveno’s statement was taken in a question-and-answer format, following his account of events. She also answered queries from Kelly Smith’s lawyer about her role on 4 March 2024, when she was part of the group picking up Kelly and Appollis.
Sekhobe said she did not hear any screams and added that, from her position in the Sea Border offices, she believed she would have noticed if someone had been shouting, further quelling the defence’s assertions that Appollis and Van Rhyn were allegedly tortured by police.
Namhla Tinzi takes us closer into Kelly Smith the day Joshlin disappeared
A civilian witness named Namhla Tinzi also provided testimony. Her identity is being protected due to safety concerns.
She testified that she joined the search efforts for Joshlin on 19 February 2024, beginning from around 17:30., after returning home from her job at Shoprite.
She explained that Kelly approached her twice that evening, initially to ask if she had seen Joshlin, and then to report that Joshlin was still missing.
Tinzi lives near Kelly and decided to help by sending her own child to the park, along with Kelly and Kelly’s eleven-year-old son, to check if Joshlin might be there.
The park search yielded no results, so Tinzi suggested they proceed to Diazville, where Joshlin’s uncle resided and where the child reportedly visited from time to time.
She recalled that Jacquen voiced doubt about Joshlin going there, indicating it was too far. Tinzi insisted on leaving no place unchecked. Their party set out on foot to Diazville, with Kelly heading inside a residence while Tinzi and others waited outside.
On their way back, Tinzi received a call from a friend who asked her to pass by her house, so Tinzi sent Kelly to check whether Joshlin might have returned home. Kelly came back empty-handed.
Tinzi recounted an encounter with a child on Zola Street, who claimed to have last seen Joshlin with a group of boys. Following that lead, they arrived at a house on Peter Mokaba Street.
Kelly went into the house, spending about twenty minutes there. Tinzi asked her why she took so long, and Kelly explained she had been charging her phone.
When Tinzi questioned whether this was appropriate given that Joshlin was missing, Kelly replied that the individuals in the house said they had not seen the child.
Tinzi proposed calling the police, and the police arrived to gather information. Tinzi and Kelly discussed whether Joshlin had attended school that day, and Kelly responded that she had not.
Due to a scheduled loadshedding period at 22:00, Tinzi took her children and Kelly’s remaining children back to her own home.
Kelly continued searching, but Tinzi eventually went to sleep.
The next morning, Kelly arrived around 07:00 to say Joshlin was still not found. Tinzi was heading to work, so she asked Kelly to take both her own children.
Tinzi noted that, during the evening of 19 February, Kelly was crying on the way to Diazville but was no longer tearful upon returning from Peter Mokaba Street.
In her testimony, Tinzi said she had no prior disputes with Kelly and that their relationship was friendly but not close.
Ms Andrews opens up about Kelly’s past and issues with raising Joshlin
The next witness, a family friend of Kelly’s, referred to in court as Ms Andrews, offered further insights.
She testified that she had known Kelly for more than 20 years and that at some point Kelly’s mother came to stay with Ms Andrews.
According to her testimony, this connection deepened over time, with Ms Andrews occasionally caring for Joshlin.
She described herself as “groot maak ma,” explaining that she performed many of the day-to-day tasks of raising Joshlin when Kelly was away.
Ms Andrews recalled attempts at an official adoption process, involving a social worker, which never reached fruition because Kelly did not follow through.
She stated that she remained concerned about Joshlin’s welfare because she believed the girl was sometimes unkempt and possibly lacked proper stability at home.
Ms Andrews also covered the events of 19 February 2024, noting that Kelly arrived at her house in the company of another woman, later identified as Namhla, asking if Joshlin was there.
Ms Andrews said Kelly did not appear either calm or overly anxious at that point. Kelly returned to the same house before 01:00. on 20 February, this time with the police, to collect a photograph of Joshlin.
Ms Andrews said she eventually saw Kelly later that same day at the police station. According to her, Kelly appeared heartbroken there, insisting she had no idea of Joshlin’s whereabouts.
Ms Andrews joined in the search for Joshlin, going with Kelly to inform family members and returning to Middelbos. She noticed changes in Kelly’s attitude, observing that she became more composed as time passed. Ms Andrews testified that she continued to assist in search efforts and visited Kelly three times in Pollsmoor Prison to learn whether Kelly had discovered any leads about Joshlin. Kelly repeated that she did not know where Joshlin was.
Ms Andrews finished her testimony by saying she believed Kelly to be a good mother who had a strong relationship with her children. She only learned of Lourentia Lombaard after the investigation into Joshlin’s disappearance began.
Mrs Carlien Zeegers testimony was too hard to bare for emotional Kelly
Another state witness, Mrs Carlien Zeegers, described having known Kelly for roughly four years.
The elderly woman explained that Kelly was not formally employed by her. She only came over on most days to help out around the house for spare change and food for her kids. Kelly also provided casual domestic work for her daughter, Kelly Zeeger.
Part of Mrs Zeegers’ testimony was too hard for Kelly, who was visibly shaken. The judge called a 15-minute adjournment to allow her to calm down.
When proceedings resumed, Zeegers indicated that Kelly usually arrived at her place after dropping off the older children at school, sitting briefly before walking the youngest to a nearby crèche.
On 19 February 2024, however, Kelly appeared at seven in the morning, which Mrs Zeegers considered out of the ordinary.
She recounted giving Kelly some money: first R50 to purchase bread, then an additional R150 to fill a gas cylinder because Kelly had complained about cooking on open fires.
She explained that Kelly usually took only ten minutes to collect her child from the crèche but was gone for nearly an hour that day, a delay Mrs Zeegers attributed to Kelly’s talkative nature.
According to her statement, Kelly and another individual finished cleaning a house on her daughter’s property before heading to a local graveyard shortly before five o’clock.
Later that evening, Mrs Zeegers phoned Kelly to inquire whether the missing child had been found. Kelly claimed the police were involved by then, especially due to loadshedding, but there were no further updates.
Mrs Zeegers went on to describe Kelly’s living arrangements, mentioning a Wendy house that was erected with financial assistance from a church community.
She said she had heard that Kelly had formed a relationship with Jacquen during the same period, but she was not aware of the specifics.
She also testified she had experienced some losses at her own house, though she did not elaborate, and the court prevented further character-related discussions.
Kelly’s lawyer stated there were no further questions for Mrs Zeegers, while counsel for Steveno and Jacquen opted not to cross-examine her.
The witness clarified that she had reviewed her statement to ensure its accuracy prior to testifying. When asked about Kelly taking a prolonged time to collect her child, she reiterated her belief that Kelly had been conversing with people along the route.
Proceedings concluded with the judge seeking clarity on the length of time required for cross-examination of the witness and with no further questions raised by any defence counsel.
The state is expected to resume proceedings with a new witness on Tuesday.
Catch up on the Joshlin Smith trial with our weekly recaps. We post new deep-dives every Friday. Check out the first recap below and make sure to subscribe and turn on post notifications for the latest drops on our YouTube channel.
