Senzo Meyiwa Trial | State and defence clash over image metadata

A fresh battle over photographic evidence and metadata erupted in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial on Monday as proceedings resumed in the Pretoria High Court.

The trial returned after a two-week break, with the State and defence immediately at odds over what evidence had previously been disclosed.

At the centre of the latest courtroom showdown is image number 46, a photograph allegedly taken on the morning of 26 October 2014, the day Bafana Bafana captain, Senzo Meyiwa, was killed.

The photograph shows accused number three, Mthobisi Mncube, alongside his late friend Mabungu Ntuli and accused number four, Mthokozisi Mapisa.

However, Mncube disputes that the photograph was taken on the day Meyiwa was killed.

He told the court that accused number one, Muzi Sibiya, took the photograph using Mncube’s cellphone, which he says was the only phone in his possession at the time.

Prosecutor, Advocate Ronnie Sibanda, then sought to drill down into the metadata linked to the photograph, using the digital information to establish when the image was allegedly captured.

But defence Advocate, Charles Mnisi, was quick to object.

Mnisi argued that while image number 46 had previously been handed to the court, the metadata now being relied upon by the State was not included when the image was originally presented.

The defence has accused the State of introducing information that it says was not properly disclosed beforehand.

Mncube himself has also hit back at State’s case.

He accused the prosecution of presenting false information about him to the court, insisting that much of what has been presented does not reflect what he previously said.

Mncube also wants records from 2020 placed back on the record, arguing that they could help challenge the State’s version of events.

He pointed to what he described as discrepancies involving the dating of photographs – including an image he says was taken in 2012, but which the prosecution allegedly presented as having been taken on 2 September 2014.

“Last year June they brought my photo here before court. They alleged that the photo was taken on the 2nd of September 2014. They said their metadata told them that. However, that picture was taken in 2012. The metadata that told them that the image was taken in 2014 is telling them lies. That’s why I’m asking for my record because there are a lot of things which have been written here in court that I never said,” Mncube said.

The courtroom drama did not end there.

The State subsequently handed the defence information it says had already been placed on record.

That move, however, sparked another objection.

Mnisi questioned why the information was only being furnished to the defence now if it had already been disclosed.

Sibanda maintained that the material had previously formed part of Exhibit 7, which he said was led in evidence on 23 and 24 July 2025.

The defence disputes this, pointing out that it was cross-examining Vodacom forensic liaison supervisor, Pinky Vythilingum, on those dates.

The defence has now challenged the State to identify exactly where the disputed information appears in the court record.

Advocate, Zandile Mshololo, has asked for time away from court to verify the State’s claims and determine whether the information was indeed previously disclosed.

With more than 700 images forming part of the evidence relating to the accused, the latest battle over image number 46 could prove to be far more than a simple dispute over a photograph.

For now, the questions hanging over the courtroom are not just what the photograph shows, but what its metadata can prove, when the information disclosed to the defence and whether it was properly placed before the court.

Written by: Odirile Rabalao