Angy Peter cross examined in court

Peter along with her husband and others are accused of the kidnapping and attempted murder of Du Preez in October 2012. Du Preez died from burns after being assaulted and necklaced.

Prosecutor Pelesa started by questioning Peter about her actions the morning following the the theft of her television set. Two months before his death, Du Preez was arrested for stealing a television from Peters.

Mbadu, Peter’s husband, had formally reported the theft to the police. Peter stated that she had visited Du Preez’s home the next morning to inquire about her television. She said Du Preez had recently informed her that Ta Ager, whose real name is Sgt. Tshikeli and who works in the Crime Intelligence Division at the Mfuleni Police Station, was using Du Preez for stolen goods. Peter said she suspected that Ta Ager was involved in the theft of her television, and wanted Du Preez’s help in locating it.

Peter also stated that she had visited other friends of Du Preez and her neighbours to ask about the television. At the court session on 19 June, Pelesa suggested that Peter had participated in “mob justice,” something Peter had denounced publicly in her work for the Social Justice Coalition. Peter denied the allegations.

Pelesa suggested that further meetings were held in September 2012 to discuss Du Preez’s involvement in the television theft. He quoted the testimony of Asavela Ziki, a witness for the state.

Ziki claimed that during these meetings individuals stated that: “Any thief caught must be burned.” Pelesa argued that this quote was ominous, given Du Preez’s fate.

Peter acknowledged that an additional community meeting had been held the evening following the theft, but denied that any further meetings were held, and did not confirm the statement.

Du Preez was released on bail for the television theft 9 October 2012, four days before he was murdered. Peter stated that she had been to see him that week to gain information on Ta Ager.

The prosecution said two state witnesses put Peter at the scene of the crime. Peter explained that one of the witnesses had been a translator for the other witness. She therefore questioned whether the testimonies could be regarded as independent from one another. Peter maintains she was at home in bed at the time of the assault on Du Preez.

Cross-examination continues today, 24 June.