Senzo Meyiwa trial | Accused number three’s ex-girlfriend disputes gold tooth in controversial photo

The controversial gold tooth photograph has once again come under scrutiny in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial, with a former girlfriend of accused number three, Mthobisi Mncube, insisting that he never had gold tooth.

Testifying at the Pretoria High Court, Slindile Mkhize, told the court that Mncube never had a gold tooth, despite previous testimony suggesting that he had one, along with dreadlocks, when Meyiwa was fatally shot in Vosloorus in October 2014.

Mkhize, who dated Mncube between 2011 and 2014, told the court that they met at Mazulwini Hostel in Vosloorus, where Mncube was staying.

She often visited a family friend who also lived at the hostel, and the two eventually became romantically involved.

The former couple would frequently take pictures of each other using their cellphones, images that have now become central to a dispute in court.

Defence Advocate, Charles Mnisi, presented Mkhize with the disputed photograph showing Mncube with dreadlocks and what appears to be a gold tooth. He asked whether she recognised the image and whether Mncube had gold on his teeth at the time.

Mkhize confirmed that she had taken the photograph in 2012 while the two were relaxing in Mncube’s bedroom at Mazulwini Hostel.

However, she was adamant that the photograph presented in court did not show Mncube with a gold tooth.

She maintained that she had never seen him with gold teeth, adding that he actually disliked both gold teeth and tattoos.

In an interesting twist, Mkhize revealed that she was the one who had a gold tooth, something Mncube apparently disapproved of.

She recalled that he had once raised concerns about the impression she would make when meeting his family, warning that her gold tooth and tattoos could create a bad impression.

Mkhize maintains that the photograph presented in court is not an accurate reflection of the original image she remembers taking.

The disputed photograph previously featured in the testimony of Sergeant Moses Mabasa, who told the court that he had been tasked with examining 784 images extracted from a memory card belonging to Mncube’s cellphone, which was confiscated on 9 February 2015.

Among the images was the now controversial photograph showing Mncube with dreadlocks, smiling broadly, with one of his teeth appearing to have a gold-coloured surface.

Mncube also previously underwent a professional dental assessment. A doctor reported that his upper canine appeared to have marginal preparation, suggesting that some dental work had been  done.

When asked to examine the photograph more closely, Mkhize again rejected it as a true and fair representation of the original picture she says she took.

She further told the court that the last time she saw Mncube, in November 2014, he still had no gold on any of his teeth.

The proceedings also saw a clash between the State and defence over the prosecutor’s line of questioning.

State Prosecutor, Advocate Dr Ronnie Sibanda, sought to challenge Mkhize’s account of where the photograph was taken, pointing out that during the testimony of KwaZulu-Natal inmate, Qiniselani Bhuthelezi’s testimony, the court had heard that the photograph was taken at a house.

Defence Advocate, Charles Mnisi, immediately objected, taking issue with what he viewed as unnecessary semantics over whether the location was a hostel or a house.

“Who has ever said that a hostel is not a house? Who has ever said that a hostel is not a house? Because I also once stayed at a hostel and that was my house; where I stayed. Let the court not be misled by prosecution, my lord,” Mnisi said.

Defence Advocate, Sipho Ramosepele, also objected when Sibanda asked Mkhize whether she could identify discoloration on Mncube’s teeth in the disputed photograph, and whether she thought it could have been a gold tooth, given that she herself had one.

Ramosepele argued that the witness was being asked to compare two things without having been shown the material needed to make that comparison.

“As it pleases the court, my lord. This line of questioning, I’m sorry, I am embarrassed. I am an officer of the court. We haven’t been shown what this witness here has got and now she is being asked to compare chalk and cheese. I’m not sure what we are doing here,” Ramosepele said.

He further accused Sibanda of overstepping his mandate, reminding the court that it and not the prosecutor would ultimately have to determine what the photograph showed.

“At the end of the day it is the court, not advocate Sibanda, that has to make a determination. It is the court that has to see what is it that is being compared. What Advocate Sibanda sees is irrelevant,” he added.

With the disputed photograph still under scrutiny, the trial continues to examine questions surrounding the identity and appearance of the alleged shooter, and whether the detail of a gold tooth could carry significance in the State’s case against the five men accused of killing the Bafana Bafana and Orlando Pirates captain.

Written by: Odirile Rabalao