‘POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED TO CORONER TAMPERED WITH’

MATSAPHA – A senior police officer, who investigated the suspected bullet hole in the car that was driven by the late Thabani Nkomonye, allegedly submitted a report that was tampered with.

Detective Inspector Vincent Mbingo, who joined the police force on April 6, 1992 (29 years ago) and had been in the Ballistic Department for 17 years (since 2004), is witness 17 in the ongoing inquest into the death of Thabani. He appeared before the Coroner, Senior Magistrate Nonhlanhla Dlamini, yesterday. After delivering his evidence, Mbingo was cross-examined by Lawyer Mangaliso Nkomondze, who is one of the legal experts representing the Nkomonye family in the matter. The lawyer asked the witness to read the conclusion of his report and he did. “I therefore conclude that the hole in the rear bumper of the car, a Mazda Demio, black in colour, is not a bullet hole. This hole was created by a bolt that is fixed inside the bumper of the car. The hole shows that it was from inside-out. There can never be a possibility that a bullet can be fired from inside the car to an outwards direction,” the witness said as he read the conclusion.

Conclusion

Thereafter, the lawyer asked him if he had read the whole conclusion and the witness responded to the positive. The lawyer asked him to read it again and after the witness had done so, Nkomondze verified if that was where the conclusion ended and again he responded to the affirmative. The lawyer then gave him a copy of his report and told the coroner that he wanted the witness to read it as it seemed to be different. In response, the coroner stated that she had also underlined a line in her copy as she noticed something was different. Likewise, the prosecutor agreed that she was carrying a copy that seemed to be similar to that of the coroner and lawyer.

When reading the copy for the lawyer, he said; “I therefore conclude that the hole in the rear bumper of the car, a Mazda Demio, black in colour, is not a bullet hole. This hole was created by a bolt that is fixed inside the bumper of the car. The hole shows that it was from inside-out. The bumper fibres that are on the bolt also confirm that there was contact between the bolt and the bumper. There can never be a possibility that a bullet can be fired from inside the car to an outwards direction.” Thereafter, Nkomondze asked the witness if he could confirm that the two conclusions were not the same. In response, the officer submitted that he could not say the conclusions were not the same because they had a same explanation, but different wording.

Experience

The lawyer then reminded him that he had about 30 years of experience as a police officer and said he should know the importance of his statement which he swore for. He then asked him to cooperate. “Do you agree that the two statements are not the same?” the lawyer asked again. “They are not worded the same,” the witness responded and the lawyer accepted his response. Thereafter, Lawyer Nkomondze asked Mbingo if he was aware that on the day when he investigated the car (May 14, 2021), it was a day after Thabani’s body was discovered. The officer claimed that he was not aware and the lawyer said he found it unbelievable because the matter made news headlines on that day. He then said as an officer with 30 years of experience and an expert, what was he concealing. The witness maintained that he was not aware as he had not read the newspapers.

Again, the lawyer said it was also unbelievable that the witness and the officer who showed him the car (Junior Dlamini from Manzini Serious Crime Unit (Lukhozi), did not discuss the background about the car on that day. He said he was saying so because on that day (May 14, 2021) the matter was a burning issue within the police service. He then asked the witness if he wanted the coroner to believe that he did not know the matter. In response, he said the only information he had was the one he was given by Crime Desk Officer Superintendent Mlangeni, who called and told him to attend a car that was allegedly involved in a shooting. Once more, the lawyer said this was unbelievable because as workmates, he believed they discussed cases they were working on. He also asked if on this day, he did not find it important to know the context and background about the exhibit (car) he was investigating, especially because the allegations were that it was involved in a shooting.

The witness submitted that he did not find it more important than what he was told by Superintendent Mlangeni. However, the lawyer told him that he made him conclude that he was allegedly concealing something, but in response the witness submitted that he was not concealing something. Instead he alleged that if he asked officer Junior Dlamini, he was supposedly going to tell him what he got from Mlangeni. It was then that the lawyer told him that he was allegedly concealing something because he had also submitted an edited report and he denied that he reconstructed it. He also asked Mbingo why the coroner would believe that he was not concealing anything.

Reconstructed

The lawyer added that the reason why he (witness) had a report that was different from that of the rest of the team was that he allegedly reconstructed it. He asked if he was wrong. In response, the witness submitted he was wrong because the only difference was the size of the photos. However, the lawyer reminded him that he read the conclusions of the two statements and confirmed that it was not the same. In response, the witness submitted that the wording could be different, but it meant the same thing.
Thereafter, Nkomondze said there was an important sentence that was not in the witness’s report, which was inserted in the other statements. He noted that both statements were signed at the Attorney General’s (AGs) Office on the same day. He said the sentence in question reads; “The bumper fibres that are on the bolt also confirm that there was contact between the bolt and the bumper.”

The lawyer then asked him if he agreed with him and he responded to the positive. Again, the lawyer wanted to know if the witness would confirm that the report was allegedly reconstructed and again, Mbingo responded to the affirmative. After that, Nkomondze told the witness that the reason he reconstructed the report by inserting the sentence was because he allegedly wanted to try to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no bullet hole in the car. However, the witness did not agree with the legal eagle. The lawyer asked him why he inserted the sentence and he claimed that after seeing the pictures in the report, which he had signed at the AG’s Office, were small and not clear, he decided to go to his computer to enlarge them.
In the process, he claimed that he also re-read the report and discovered that his findings were not articulated clear, thus he allegedly inserted the sentence.

Nkomondze said his take was that the witness inserted the sentence allegedly in a bid to try to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no bullet hole in the car and Mbingo responded to the positive. The lawyer classified this as tempering with the report. Again, the lawyer said trying to convince that there was no bullet hole in the car, allegedly did not start there. He claimed that the witness allegedly also reconstructed the bullet hole in the car. However, Mbingo alleged that he did not touch the hole, instead he only measured it.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: