It has been a while since I read the judgement but what is clear is that Tongo's story was convoluted and ultimately highly confused. There were several areas however which in theory could have tied the alleged conspiracy together and which involved the making of several phone calls. In the event however, records failed to confirm most of these calls and texts which Tongo claimed Dewani made.
According to Tongo, the Dewanis arrived on the Friday and by that same night a plan had been put into place to kill someone the following night. I find that rather difficult to believe unless Dewani and Tongo were not strangers but in fact had some prior dealings, there is no evidence to suggest this was the case.
There are limited scenarios in this case. Did the hijacking occur without Tongos knowledge ie was he an innocent participant? The answer here is in his plea bargain. No innocent person will seek a plea bargain which would see them sentenced to 18 years in prison.
So we are left with two possibilities, either Tongo was telling the truth and agreed to set up a hit for a personal fee of 5,000 Rand or about £250 ( R15,000 or £750 going to the two killers) or Tongo was telling a load of porkies and it was he himself who set it all up as a hijacking/robbery.
Apologies John for not being able to address this until today. Its not easy to respond to such a post briefly as you make a number of points.
Tongo's testimony was not merely convoluted. His version of events contradicted his own statements as well as those of his co-conspirators on almost every material aspect of the case. The only thing that the phone calls and texts proved, was that there was interaction between Tongo and Dewani. Neither Tongo or Dewani disputed that those interactions took place. The only thing that was in dispute was whether those interactions related to organising a helicopter trip or a murder. Paragraphs 20-22 of
the Judgement explain this.
It is natural that there would be some errors and inconsistencies when recalling events from four years prior. Whilst these do raise little flags regarding his reliability as a witness, we are of the belief that these "mistakes" on their own do not prove that Tongo was lying about Dewani's involvement. The proof lies in the deceptive fabrications and perjury, in which Tongo was caught red handed. Apologies but I'm just going to lift a few examples straight from our site rather than typing it again.
TRUE 23:
Both Tongo and Mbolombo were caught fabricating testimony, relating to a phone call and texts that never existed, with the sole purpose of incriminating Shrien Dewani. The gist of their testimony was to make it appear as though Dewani had been chastising them to ensure that his wife would be killed and was in a hurry for it to happen. Paragraphs 23.1.79, and 24.3.37 of the Judgement, detail these fabrications, and the fact that both the prosecution and the defence teams agreed that the call/texts never took place.
TRUE 28:
There was a fifth conspirator in the plot, who was referenced in a taped phone conversation between Tongo and Mbolombo. Both Tongo and Mbolombo refused to name the fifth conspirator in Court. They contradicted each other’s answers and lied to cover this person’s identity. Paragraph 23.1.100 and 23.1.101 of the Judgement explain this point.
TRUE 29:
Qwabe refused to explain to the Court, why he drove Anni back into a residential area, when (according to him) he was carrying out a planned execution. Paragraph 24.1.28 of the Judgement, summarises Qwabe’s nonsensical contradictory evidence in this regard.
TRUE 33:
On the night of the fatal robbery, Zola Tongo made two “passes” through Gugulethu, with the Dewanis travelling in his taxi. The hijacking was supposed to occur on the first pass, however it didn’t eventuate because Qwabe and Mngeni failed to get a ride to the agreed location by the agreed time. After stopping for dinner, the hijacking was re-scheduled and took place later in the evening during the second pass through Gugulethu. Tongo admitted, under oath, that he made no attempt to ascertain whether the money was in the car prior to the first pass through Gugulethu, and since the Dewanis sat in the back of the taxi, Tongo knew with 100% certainty that the money could not be in the cubbyhole. This point is of great importance, given Zola Tongo’s claim that an integral part of the plan was for Dewani to leave an “agreed” R15,000 in the car’s cubbyhole (glovebox) for the hijackers. So despite knowing that the key element of his own version, the price of the hit, was not in place he was content to drive to the hijacking spot anyway. This is solid proof that there was no “agreed” sum, and that this was in fact a robbery/kidnapping operation of which Shrien Dewani had absolutely no knowledge. Paragraphs 23.1.71 and 23.1.78 of the Judgement detail this crucial point, and highlight Tongo’s deception.
Those are but a few examples of Tongo's deceptiveness. Read our site or the Judgement if you are interested in having the full arsenal of facts at your disposal.
It is our view (and the judge's view) that the hitman story could not reasonably possibly be true. It doesn't make any sense, its highly improbable on many levels, and the criminals who told that story were caught in so many instances of deception that it became obvious that they made it up to serve their own purposes.
Perhaps you can understand then why we are outraged at Mbolombo being a free man? The NPA have apparently told him that he will never be prosecuted. Does that sound like justice for Anni?
