State closes its case in ex-judge Teek’s trial

TODAY could mark a turning point in the High Court trial of former Judge Pio Teek, who is facing charges of child abduction and molestation.

Having called 17 witnesses to testify in the prosecution against Teek (59), Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs closed the State’s case in the trial before South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo in the High Court in Windhoek late yesterday afternoon. When Judge Bosielo returns to court this morning, Teek’s defence team is set to inform the Judge what its next step in the trial would be.The defence has two main options to choose from.Whether to go ahead and present evidence in support of Teek’s defence against the charges to the court, or whether to attempt a quick-kill attack against the prosecution’s case by asking the Judge to acquit Teek at this stage of the trial already, without requiring him to present his defence case to the court.The latter option would only be viable if the defence can persuade the Judge that the State has failed to present any evidence to the court on which Teek could be convicted.Teek faces eight charges as a result of allegations that he abducted two girls, aged nine and ten respectively, from the Katutura Single Quarters area and drove with them in his vehicle to his home in the Brakwater area north of Windhoek on the evening of January 28 last year.On the way, it is alleged, he sexually fondled the older girl.At his home, he gave them alcoholic drinks and showed them a pornographic video, it is also alleged.The State has further charged that he had each of the children seated on his lap at some stage while making sexually suggestive movements, and also sexually fondled the older girl for a second time at the house.Teek is denying all the charges.In a plea explanation he has stated that he found the children on a street in the Katutura Single Quarters area on the evening in question, when he was in the area to look for an employee of his.He stated that the two girls complained to him that they were hungry, and since they looked skinny and dirty, he felt sorry for them and decided to take them to his home to give them some food.He stated that his plan was to take the children back to Katutura after they had eaten.He fell asleep while the children were swimming, however, and when he woke up around midnight, found them also asleep on a sofa in the house.They did not want to get up when he tried to wake them, so he let them sleep and took them back to Katutura the next morning, Teek stated.He had acted with noble intentions throughout, he informed the court in his plea.If it decides to apply for Teek’s discharge at the close of the State’s case, the defence might seize on scores of contradictions and inconsistencies in the versions of the events that came from the two young girls who are the subject of the eight charges against Teek.They testified in court on Tuesday and yesterday.While they insisted to the end that something broadly in line with the allegations against Teek had happened, the defence still has a wealth of contradictions and inconsistencies in their accounts of the alleged events to mine in favour of Teek’s defence.A digital confusion was one of the aspects of the prosecution’s case that defence team member Louis du Pisani explored in his cross-examination of the older girl yesterday.She had told the court the day before that after she and the other girl had a swim in Teek’s swimming pool while dressed only in their panties, Teek laid his left index finger on her private parts, and that this hurt her.Yesterday she at first showed to the court that he had used his right index finger, before she quickly corrected herself and said it had been the left index finger.Then Du Pisani pointed out to her that her mother had told the court in the first week of the trial three months ago that she had reported to her mother that Teek had used his middle finger.Under cross-examination the girl also made additions to the testimony she had previously given, prompting Du Pisani to comment to her that her story just kept on growing and getting bigger all the way.She had forgotten some things earlier, she answered.Du Pisani made this comment after she girl had told the court that in Teek’s car on the way from Katutura to Brakwater, Teek had offered her beer.She had never mentioned this before, and neither did the other girl mention something like that to the court.Du Pisani also questioned her about claims that were made in a statement that she had made to the Police, but which were not repeated in court.One of these was a claim that in the vehicle on the way to Brakwater, Teek had touched her private parts.He did not touch her on that part of her body in the vehicle; that was something that he did at his house, the girl answered, saying the Police statement was wrong on that point.The older girl for the first time yesterday also told the court – just like Teek claims in his plea explanation – that when Teek first spoke to her and a group of children in the area of the Katutura Single Quarters, he was indeed looking for a man, whose name she could not remember.At the same time, she for the first time claimed that she and the other girl got into Teek’s vehicle because he had invited them to go to his house to drink beer and have a celebration – something that none of the other child witnesses had previously mentioned to the court.The other, younger girl, used to steal beer from her sister, the older girl told the court when asked why the younger girl would have wanted to accompany them on a journey with such an aim of drinking beer and “celebrating”.When Judge Bosielo returns to court this morning, Teek’s defence team is set to inform the Judge what its next step in the trial would be.The defence has two main options to choose from.Whether to go ahead and present evidence in support of Teek’s defence against the charges to the court, or whether to attempt a quick-kill attack against the prosecution’s case by asking the Judge to acquit Teek at this stage of the trial already, without requiring him to present his defence case to the court.The latter option would only be viable if the defence can persuade the Judge that the State has failed to present any evidence to the court on which Teek could be convicted.Teek faces eight charges as a result of allegations that he abducted two girls, aged nine and ten respectively, from the Katutura Single Quarters area and drove with them in his vehicle to his home in the Brakwater area north of Windhoek on the evening of January 28 last year.On the way, it is alleged, he sexually fondled the older girl.At his home, he gave them alcoholic drinks and showed them a pornographic video, it is also alleged.The State has further charged that he had each of the children seated on his lap at some stage while making sexually suggestive movements, and also sexually fondled the older girl for a second time at the house.Teek is denying all the charges.In a plea explanation he has stated that he found the children on a street in the Katutura Single Quarters area on the evening in question, when he was in the area to look for an employee of his.He stated that the two girls complained to him that they were hungry, and since they looked skinny and dirty, he felt sorry for them and decided to take them to his home to give them some food.He stated that his plan was to take the children back to Katutura after they had eaten.He fell asleep while the children were swimming, however, and when he woke up around midnight, found them also asleep on a sofa in the house.They did not want to get up when he tried to wake them, so he let them sleep and took them back to Katutura the next morning, Teek stated.He had acted with noble intentions throughout, he informed the court in his plea.If it decides to apply for Teek’s discharge at the close of the State’s case, the defence might seize on scores of contradictions and inconsistencies in the versions of the events that came from the two young girls who are the subject of the eight charges against Teek.They testified in court on Tuesday and yesterday.While they insisted to the end that something broadly in line with the allegations against Teek had happened, the defence still has a wealth of contradictions and inconsistencies in their accounts of the alleged events to mine in favour of Teek’s defence.A digital confusion was one of the aspects of the prosecution’s case that defence team member Louis du Pisani explored in his cross-examination of the older girl yesterday.She had told the court the day before that after she and the other girl had a swim in Teek’s swimming pool while dressed only in their panties, Teek laid his left index finger on her private parts, and that this hurt her.Yesterday she at first showed to the court that he had used his right index finger, before she quickly corrected herself and said it had been the left index finger.Then Du Pisani pointed out to her that her mother had told the court in the first week of the trial three months ago that she had reported to her mother that Teek had used his middle finger.Under cross-examination the girl also made additions to the testimony she had previously given, prompting Du Pisani to comment to her that her story just kept on growing and getting bigger all the way.She had forgotten some things earlier, she answered.Du Pisani made this comment after she girl had told the court that in Teek’s car on the way from Katutura to Brakwater, Teek had offered her beer.She had never mentioned this before, and neither did the other girl mention something like that to the court.Du Pisani also questioned her about claims that were made in a statement that she had made to the Police, but which were not repeated in court.One of these was a claim that in the vehicle on the way to Brakwater, Teek had touched her private parts.He did not touch her on that part of her body in the vehicle; that was something that he did at his house, the girl answered, saying the Police statement was wrong on that point.The older girl for the first time yesterday also told the court – just like Teek claims in his plea explanation – that when Teek first spoke to her and a group of children in the area of the Katutura Single Quarters, he was indeed looking for a man, whose name she could not remember.At the same time, she for the first time claimed that she and the other girl got into Teek’s vehicle because he had invited them to go to his house to drink beer and have a celebration – something that none of the other child witnesses had previously mentioned to the court.The other, younger girl, used to steal beer from her sister, the older girl told the court when asked why the younger girl would have wanted to accompany them on a journey with such an aim of drinking beer and “celebrating”.