A self-confessed hitman made a heartfelt plea at the Western Cape High Court for his evidence against alleged underworld kingpin, Nafiz Modack, to be accepted as the truth, as he comes under scrutiny from the defence teams.
After facing several days of gruelling cross-examination, the convicted felon who has already admitted to murdering the father of a Hawks detective, told Judge Robert Henney that he is not a liegbek.
The witness, who may only be identified as Mr A, sent tongues wagging when he boldly took to the dock to piemp Modack and members of the Terrible West Siders gang, claiming they were behind the attempted assassinations of criminal lawyer William Booth as well as Andre Naude, a known associate of controversial businessman Mark Lifman.
The witness gave an in depth account of the planning and motivations of the botched assassinations of both Booth and Naude.
While under cross-examination by Advocate Nazeer Parkar, Mr A became visibly annoyed as he answered questions regarding Modack’s co-accused Ziyaad Poole, whom he claims acted as a middleman.
Listing all the dates highlighted in Booth’s statement, Parkar said it did not match Mr A’s claims about the days on which he was allegedly sent to kill Booth, as he has been attending court in both Wynberg and Worcester.
Parkar, who also represents Moegamat Toufeek “Bubbles” Brown, further questioned the witness about placing alleged members of the Terrible West Siders gang at various meetings, saying his client denied these meetings.
The State witness then told the court that he had no issue with Brown, who he outed as the gang leader, that would justify ‘dragging his name through the mud’.
“Mr A” stated: “I have no problems [with him] that must come to court and drag his name through the mud. I am only telling the court what happened.
“Why must I come here and say they were at certain places when they weren’t when I am already here for crimes that I did?”
“Mr A” also alleged that Hawks detective, Lieutenant-Colonel Pieter Joubert, made mistakes when taking his statement.
As he answered questions about the day he was caught with a firearm near the home of Brown, he said while the investigator wrote in the statement that Mario “Piele” Pietersen was present, he informed the detective that this was wrong.
The witness added: “He told me he wrote it as he understood it, I told him that his understanding was not right. Piele was not there.”
The trial continues.