In a tense and technical cross-examination at the High Court in Pretoria, one of the men accused of murdering football star Senzo Meyiwa has launched a fierce challenge against the state’s key cellphone evidence, arguing that the data presented does not prove he was at the crime scene.
Bongani Ntanzi, the second accused in the long-running trial, took the stand this week to directly confront the forensic evidence that the State is relying on to place him at the scene of the crime. The Orlando Pirates and Bafana Bafana goalkeeper was shot and killed on October 26, 2014, at the home of his then-girlfriend, singer Kelly Khumalo, in Vosloorus, ostensibly during a botched robbery.
For years, the case has been mired in controversy, with questions raised about the police investigation and the reliability of witnesses. The cellphone data, which maps the location of Ntanzi’s device through tower activity, is considered a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. The State alleges that the movement of his phone places him in the vicinity of the Khumalo residence in Vosloorus at the time of the murder.
However, during his testimony, Ntanzi methodically picked apart the State’s interpretation of the data. Under the watchful eye of his legal representative, he argued that the cellphone tower “pings” used to place him at the scene are not as definitive as the prosecution claims.
“A Tower Covers a Wide Area”
Ntanzi’s primary argument centered on the range and functionality of cellphone towers. He contended that just because his phone connected to a particular tower near Vosloorus does not mean he was physically present at the crime scene. In cellular network technology, a single tower can service a radius of several kilometers, especially in semi-urban areas.
“I am not denying my phone was in that area,” Ntanzi was quoted as telling the court. “But being in the coverage area of that tower does not mean I was at that specific house.” He suggested that at the time the data was captured, he could have been anywhere within that tower’s reach—perhaps at a different location altogether—and that the State’s insistence on pinpointing him at the crime scene is an overreach of the technology’s capabilities.
This line of defense taps into a well-known limitation of historical cellphone analysis: it can place a device within a general area, but without additional data (such as GPS or Wi-Fi triangulation), it cannot confirm an exact address.
A Pattern of Challenging the Investigation
Ntanzi’s challenge is part of a broader defense strategy that has seen all five accused attempt to discredit the police work and forensic evidence presented. The defense teams have consistently hammered home the narrative that the investigation was botched from the start, that witnesses have contradicted themselves, and that the accused are being scapegoated.
Ntanzi, who was arrested in 2020—nearly six years after the murder—has previously claimed that he was assaulted by police to force a confession. The court has heard arguments about the admissibility of confessions allegedly made by Ntanzi and the first accused, with the defense arguing they were made under duress. The cellphone evidence is distinct from the confession issue, but it forms part of the same battle: to dismantle the State’s narrative piece by piece.
During the cross-examination, Ntanzi also pointed to discrepancies in the times recorded on the cellphone logs versus the timelines provided by other State witnesses. He argued that the State has failed to create a seamless timeline that places all five accused together at the scene, insisting that the data for his phone is being selectively used to fit the prosecution’s theory.
The State’s Stance
Prosecutors have yet to deliver their rejoinder to Ntanzi’s testimony, but their case has consistently relied on the premise that the cellphone data, combined with witness testimony and the alleged confessions, creates an unbroken chain of evidence.
The State is expected to argue that while a single tower ping might not be conclusive, the pattern of movement across multiple towers and the timing of calls can build a compelling picture. They may also call on forensic experts to explain the nuances of the data and why they believe it places Ntanzi and his co-accused at the scene.
A Trial Nearing Its Climax
The Senzo Meyiwa trial has dragged on for years, becoming a focal point for public interest in South Africa. The case is being heard by Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng, who has maintained a tight grip on proceedings to prevent further delays.
As Ntanzi continues his testimony, the courtroom remains a theatre of high drama. The family of Senzo Meyiwa watches on, hoping for finality, while the accused fight to prove their innocence.
The outcome of this challenge could be pivotal. If Ntanzi successfully sows reasonable doubt about the cellphone evidence, it could significantly weaken the State’s case against him. If the State can defend its forensic work and convince the court of the data’s reliability, it will have landed a critical blow in its pursuit of a conviction.
For now, the battle in Pretoria is one of science versus skepticism, as the court weighs what the pings of a cellphone tower truly mean in the quest for justice for a slain football hero.
About The Author
