The Joshlin Smith trial took a dramatic turn when presiding Judge Nathan Erasmus ruled that statements made by two of the accused, Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis and Steveno ‘Steffie’ van Rhyn is admissible as evidence in the main trial at the Western Cape High Court.
Judge Erasmus this week ruled that the statements made by Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn may be admitted as evidence in the main trial concerning the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith.
The decision followed extensive testimony and legal arguments in a trial-within-a-trial focused on whether the two accused had made their statements freely and voluntarily.
The trial-within-a-trial at the White City Multipurpose Centre in Diazville was initiated after both Appollis and Van Rhyn alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated, claiming their statements were obtained through assault, coercion, and psychological manipulation.
The State, however, maintained that the "confessions" were lawfully obtained and met the legal standard for admissibility.
Six-year-old Joshlin went missing from her Middelpos home in Saldanha Bay on 19 February 2024.
Her disappearance led to the arrest of her mother, Racquel 'Kelly' Smith, along with her boyfriend Appollis, friends Van Rhyn and former accused, turned state witness, Lourentia ‘Renz’ Lombaard.
Appollis, who was the first to testify in his defence, detailed the events leading up to his statement made to Colonel Adrian Pretorius on 5 March 2024.
He claimed that during his detention at the Sea Border unit, he was subjected to both physical assault and psychological pressure He said he was told what to say and merely repeated what officers instructed.
“The police instructed me to implicate Maka Lima, who is my neighbour, they said I must write in my statement that my girlfriend Kelly told me to take Joshlin to Maka Lima, and she was going to pay R20 000 for the child.
“And I was with Steveno when I left Joshlin at Maka Lima’s house.” He said he agreed to write the statement due to fear of being assaulted again.
Van Rhyn echoed similar allegations during his time on the stand. He testified that he had been approached by police on 4 March 2024, while hiking to Diazville in Vredenberg, and taken in without being told why.
He alleged that he was assaulted in a car on the way to the Sea Border offices and again once inside. Van Rhyn claimed that police used his fear and exhaustion against him, and that he was made to sign documents without understanding their contents.
He denied ever being properly informed of his rights. Video footage presented during the trial showed Van Rhyn struggling to sit or walk, and medical evidence from Dr Zimri confirmed recent injuries to his body.
The doctor noted that the examination was incomplete, and additional injuries could not be ruled out.
In response, State advocate Aradhana Heeramun argued that statements had been obtained by legal procedures.
She called multiple police officers to the stand, including Colonel Pretorius, Captain Philip Seekoei, and Sergeant Johannes Dawid Johannes Fortuin, all of whom testified that the accused had been treated fairly and cautioned properly.
Heeramun highlighted the forms signed by both Appollis and van Rhyn, which indicated they had been informed of their rights and had chosen to make the statements. She pointed out that there were inconsistencies in the accounts of both accused, particularly concerning the timing and nature of the alleged assaults.
During cross-examination, Heeramun put it to Appollis that he had changed his version of events multiple times, and suggested he was tailoring his evidence to fit a narrative of police misconduct. She also emphasised that no formal complaints had been lodged at the time of the alleged abuse. In Van Rhyn’s case, the senior prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel asked why he had not informed medical staff or any other official of the alleged assaults sooner.
The State’s position was that the accused were attempting to distance themselves from their own words by fabricating claims of torture.
Defence advocate Fanie Harmse, representing Appollis, maintained that even in the absence of serious visible injuries, the court had to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility that Appollis had been mistreated.
He emphasised contradictions in police testimony and procedural gaps, such as undocumented transfers between police locations.
Harmse argued that the totality of the circumstances, including the accused’s physical state in video footage and allegations of being dictated to, suggested the statement was not made freely.
Van Rhyn’s legal representative, Nobahle Mkabayi, advanced a similar argument, stressing that their client had been deprived of sleep, food, and proper legal consultation.
She noted that Sergeant Felicia Johnson’s only interaction with Van Rhyn before he signed a SAPS 14a form was administrative, and that his rights were not explained to him while he was coherent or fully awake.
In delivering his ruling, Judge Erasmus said he had carefully weighed the evidence from both sides and acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations.
He ruled that the State had met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statements were made voluntarily.
He admitted Appollis’s statement as Exhibit KK and van Rhyn’s statement as Exhibit JJ, while making it clear he was not yet determining the weight of those statements in the broader trial.
He said he avoided using the terms “confession” or “admission,” stating it would be premature.
The main trial is set to resume on Tuesday. Further witness testimony will also be heard as the State seeks to strengthen its case.
mandilakhe.tshwete@inl.co.za