Massacre suspect in bizarre twist to panga murder trial

FARM MASSACRE suspect Sylvester Beukes made a surprise emergence from the inner recesses of Windhoek Central Prison yesterday to take on a new guise – that of a defence witness in the trial of Kamanjab panga murder suspect Stanley Danster.

Beukes is not only accused of massacring eight people on a farm between Rehoboth and Kalkrand on March 4 to 5 last year, it transpired yesterday. He also happens to have been an eyewitness to the deadly panga slashing that claimed the life of 21-year-old Kamanjab resident Kalina Kambahepa on March 28 2004.So, in an amazing stroke of fortune, his path crossed that of Stanley Danster – the 25-year-old man accused of having killed Kambahepa – in Windhoek Central Prison’s E Section, where both of them are being kept, on Monday.This, at least, was the thrust of what Danster told Judge Sylvester Mainga yesterday morning, shortly after his defence lawyer, Louis Karsten, told the court that Danster had told him only some five minutes earlier that he wanted to call a witness to testify in his defence, and that the witness was Sylvester Beukes.Karsten had previously informed the court on several occasions that his client had no defence witnesses to call in the trial.Danster told Judge Mainga that after he returned to the prison on Monday – he had testified before Judge Mainga in his own defence earlier that day – he was approached by Beukes, who told him that he had read about Danster’s trial in a newspaper.Beukes then told him that he had in fact also been at Kamanjab on the evening that Kambahepa was killed – and that Beukes had not only seen the killing, but had seen that “a taller guy, dressed in white”, carried out this deed, Danster related.Having heard this, Judge Mainga adjourned the court so that Beukes could be brought to court to testify.FROM THE FAR SIDEAbout an hour later, Beukes was in the witness stand.According to him, on the evening of March 28 2004 he was passing through Kamanjab on the way from Opuwo to Windhoek.He was in a vehicle with a friend, who was a long-distance taxi driver, by the name of Paulus Hangara, he said.They were driving through the town, looking for a place to get something to eat, when they saw people grouped together, so they thought this might be a business outlet, Beukes said.As their vehicle turned and its lights shone on the people, he saw a person – a tall one, “dark in complexion”, and wearing a white T-shirt and white trousers – attacking a woman, he claimed.Danster is of average height.”I saw him having a panga, and he was chopping.And that person fell down.When she fell down, the person still continued chopping.She fell on her stomach,” Beukes said when he first described the scene that he said he saw.That description was soon to change, though.Still, according to Beukes the attacker then left the scene, leaving behind the group of people that he and his friend had initially seen.He and the friend thereafter also left to continue on their journey, and did not report the incident to the Police, because he normally does not interfere with things that do not concern him, Beukes said.As soon as Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs set about cross-examining Beukes, the picture he had sketched started changing.Under cross-examination, he said he saw a group of people standing, and only when they jumped away, did he see a woman falling and then someone hitting her with a panga where she lay.Beukes also went as far as denying that he had previously said that he saw the person hitting her with the weapon, and then saw her falling and the attack continuing.He also added under cross-examination that he did not actually see the attacker’s face, so he could not say whether this person had been Danster or not.JUDGE TAKEN ABACKJudge Mainga asked Beukes directly whether he could say that it was not Danster who was attacking Kambahepa.He did not see the attacker’s face, Beukes answered.Judge Mainga also asked Beukes when he last saw his friend Paulus Hangara.That was in 2003, Beukes answered.Appearing to be taken aback by this answer, Judge Mainga again asked Beukes twice when this had been.Twice Beukes answered that it was in 2003, before he appeared to realise his blunder and answered that it had actually been in February last year.Beukes was the last witness to testify in Danster’s trial.As he left the witness stand, Judge Mainga instructed the Police officers who had escorted him to court to see to it that he was returned to prison immediately.The court’s judgement is set to be delivered on June 14.Jacobs asked Judge Mainga to convict Danster and to find that he had committed a premeditated murder because he wanted to avenge a decision by Kambahepa to break off their relationship.”(Danster’s) version of the events that night is according to me so far-fetched that not even a child can believe it,” Jacobs said.In his closing argument, Karsten told the court that Danster’s instructions to him had been that Danster had acted in self-defence after Kambahepa had first attacked him.Karsten told the court that he had to concede that on the evidence presented to the court, Danster had exceeded the limits of this sort of private defence.In his testimony on Monday, Danster claimed that he had hit Kambahepa only once with an unknown weapon, which he only later realised had been a panga.He said he left her still alive in her room when he went to get medical help.However, three eyewitnesses told the court that they saw Danster hitting Kambahepa repeatedly with a panga in the yard outside her room.They also said they saw him hitting her against the back of her neck with the panga while she was lying on her stomach on the ground.According to medical evidence heard on Monday, the cuts to Kambahepa’s head were so severe that her head was partly severed from her neck.He also happens to have been an eyewitness to the deadly panga slashing that claimed the life of 21-year-old Kamanjab resident Kalina Kambahepa on March 28 2004.So, in an amazing stroke of fortune, his path crossed that of Stanley Danster – the 25-year-old man accused of having killed Kambahepa – in Windhoek Central Prison’s E Section, where both of them are being kept, on Monday.This, at least, was the thrust of what Danster told Judge Sylvester Mainga yesterday morning, shortly after his defence lawyer, Louis Karsten, told the court that Danster had told him only some five minutes earlier that he wanted to call a witness to testify in his defence, and that the witness was Sylvester Beukes.Karsten had previously informed the court on several occasions that his client had no defence witnesses to call in the trial.Danster told Judge Mainga that after he returned to the prison on Monday – he had testified before Judge Mainga in his own defence earlier that day – he was approached by Beukes, who told him that he had read about Danster’s trial in a newspaper.Beukes then told him that he had in fact also been at Kamanjab on the evening that Kambahepa was killed – and that Beukes had not only seen the killing, but had seen that “a taller guy, dressed in white”, carried out this deed, Danster related.Having heard this, Judge Mainga adjourned the court so that Beukes could be brought to court to testify.FROM THE FAR SIDE About an hour later, Beukes was in the witness stand.According to him, on the evening of March 28 2004 he was passing through Kamanjab on the way from Opuwo to Windhoek.He was in a vehicle with a friend, who was a long-distance taxi driver, by the name of Paulus Hangara, he said.They were driving through the town, looking for a place to get something to eat, when they saw people grouped together, so they thought this might be a business outlet, Beukes said. As their vehicle turned and its lights shone on the people, he saw a person – a tall one, “dark in complexion”, and wearing a white T-shirt and white trousers – attacking a woman, he claimed.Danster is of average height.”I saw him having a panga, and he was chopping.And that person fell down.When she fell down, the person still continued chopping.She fell on her stomach,” Beukes said when he first described the scene that
he said he saw.That description was soon to change, though.Still, according to Beukes the attacker then left the scene, leaving behind the group of people that he and his friend had initially seen.He and the friend thereafter also left to continue on their journey, and did not report the incident to the Police, because he normally does not interfere with things that do not concern him, Beukes said.As soon as Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs set about cross-examining Beukes, the picture he had sketched started changing.Under cross-examination, he said he saw a group of people standing, and only when they jumped away, did he see a woman falling and then someone hitting her with a panga where she lay.Beukes also went as far as denying that he had previously said that he saw the person hitting her with the weapon, and then saw her falling and the attack continuing.He also added under cross-examination that he did not actually see the attacker’s face, so he could not say whether this person had been Danster or not.JUDGE TAKEN ABACK Judge Mainga asked Beukes directly whether he could say that it was not Danster who was attacking Kambahepa.He did not see the attacker’s face, Beukes answered.Judge Mainga also asked Beukes when he last saw his friend Paulus Hangara.That was in 2003, Beukes answered.Appearing to be taken aback by this answer, Judge Mainga again asked Beukes twice when this had been.Twice Beukes answered that it was in 2003, before he appeared to realise his blunder and answered that it had actually been in February last year.Beukes was the last witness to testify in Danster’s trial.As he left the witness stand, Judge Mainga instructed the Police officers who had escorted him to court to see to it that he was returned to prison immediately.The court’s judgement is set to be delivered on June 14.Jacobs asked Judge Mainga to convict Danster and to find that he had committed a premeditated murder because he wanted to avenge a decision by Kambahepa to break off their relationship.”(Danster’s) version of the events that night is according to me so far-fetched that not even a child can believe it,” Jacobs said.In his closing argument, Karsten told the court that Danster’s instructions to him had been that Danster had acted in self-defence after Kambahepa had first attacked him.Karsten told the court that he had to concede that on the evidence presented to the court, Danster had exceeded the limits of this sort of private defence.In his testimony on Monday, Danster claimed that he had hit Kambahepa only once with an unknown weapon, which he only later realised had been a panga.He said he left her still alive in her room when he went to get medical help.However, three eyewitnesses told the court that they saw Danster hitting Kambahepa repeatedly with a panga in the yard outside her room.They also said they saw him hitting her against the back of her neck with the panga while she was lying on her stomach on the ground.According to medical evidence heard on Monday, the cuts to Kambahepa’s head were so severe that her head was partly severed from her neck.