We’re heading towards the final chapter in the highly publicised Joshlin Smith trial. Six-year-old Joshlin Smith went missing from her home on 19 February 2024. Now, the three people accused of being involved in her disappearance (her mother, Kelly Smith, along with Jacquen Appollis and Steveno Van Rhyn) are waiting to hear their fate. They’re on trial for kidnapping and human trafficking, and the judgment is expected tomorrow, 2 May.
Last week, we told you that the State had wrapped up its case. Both Kelly Smith and Steveno Van Rhyn tried to get the charges against them dropped. However, Judge Nathan Erasmus rejected their application for discharge.
This week, the defence had to lay out their arguments against the State’s case.
Kelly Smith’s defence: The witness is just “an opportunist”
Yesterday, Kelly Smith’s legal representative accused the state’s key witness in the trial of being an opportunist who was only concerned about her own interests.
Attorney Rinesh Sivnarain told the Western Cape High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay that Lourentia “Renz” Lombaard, who was arrested in March 2024 in connection with the disappearance of Joshlin, used Smith to her advantage.
It is alleged that Smith and Lombaard were once good friends.
Lombaard was initially charged alongside the other accused. However, she later became a state witness under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows a person implicated in a crime to testify truthfully against other accused individuals in exchange for indemnity from prosecution. Lombaard’s Section 204 statement was made in October 2024, after which charges against her were withdrawn.
Sivnarain said that during Lombaard’s cross-examination, it emerged that she often asked Smith for food to sustain her children. The defence argued that Lombaard was an opportunist who decided to come clean seven months after being arrested, hoping to get money from Smith.
He went on to argue that Lombard had many opportunities to confess but continued to lie.
“When Lombaard made these confessions she expected to receive some benefit and therefore only looked out for her own interest,” said Sivnarain.
However, Prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel argued on Tuesday that despite inconsistencies in Lombaard’s evidence, she was a credible witness.
Swanepoel said another witness, Nico Coetzee, spoke of “R20,000”, which Lombaard also testified to overhearing Smith tell Appollis, “Hier is die geld wat ek by die sangoma gekry het (here is the money I got from the sangoma). Smith answered R20,000 when he asked how much.
The court heard the same amount mentioned by Appollis and Van Rhyn in their statements.
Van Rhyn’s defence
On Wednesday, Van Rhyn’s lawyer, Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi, challenged the State’s case, calling it speculative and “poorly investigated.”
She claimed Van Rhyn’s arrest was unlawful and that he was mistreated by police, yet the State didn’t bring those officers to testify.
Mkabayi also questioned Lombaard’s credibility, pointing out that she didn’t mention Joshlin’s disappearance for months: “She was assaulted, taken to Langebaan, and tortured, but never mentioned anything about Joshlin until months later. She only confessed in October. That raises serious doubts about her credibility.”
What about Appollis?
Appollis’ lawyer, Fanie Harmse, also tore into Lombaard’s version of events, calling it unreliable. He insisted that Appollis had no role in planning or carrying out Joshlin’s disappearance.
What’s next? Judge Erasmus is expected to hand down his ruling this Friday at 10 a.m. If the accused are found guilty, they face possible life sentences.
However, as we await a verdict, one heartbreaking truth remains: Joshlin is still missing. Despite an intensive police investigation, the six-year-old has not been found.
Lona is a recent graduate with an Honours degree in Journalism and Media Studies from Wits University. Passionate about storytelling, she is eager to learn, grow, and hone her writing skills.
