Judgement in the case against Germiston resident Musi Walter Manaka (34), accused of causing the death of Boksburg resident Elsie Watkins (42) on May 14, last year, will be handed down in the Boksburg Magistrate’s Court on February 9.
The final arguments in the case eventually went ahead yesterday, following three postponements in December due to Manaka’s attorney not being able to attend the proceedings.
It is alleged Manaka caused Watkins’ death in the early hours of the morning that day.
He apparently drove recklessly under the influence of alcohol, lost control of his car and hit her as she stood on the grass verge with her dad, John Watkins, outside their home taking photos of a bakkie which had, minutes before, driven through their garden wall.
Next month he will know his fate on charges of culpable homicide, reckless and negligent driving (alternative charge one), inconsiderate driving (alternative charge two) and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Heentered a not guilty plea.
The state, represented by Taschnee Ramschuran, concluded that its seven witnesses were all credible and had fared well on the witness stand.
Several of the state witnesses testified that Manaka tried to walk away from the scene after the accident, smelt of alcohol and appeared to be intoxicated.
He was breathalysed on the scene by an EMPD officer and the reading produced a breath alcohol content of 0.31mg. The legal limit is 0.24mg.
Manaka’s defence argued last week that the state had failed to prove it was Manaka’s car which hit Watkins or that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol.
His defence said the state has to prove the breathalyser machine was correctly calibrated and that the officer operating it was trained to do so. The defence attorney said their investigations showed the officer had no certification to operate the breathalyser and no evidence of when the machine had last been calibrated could be found.
Manaka’s defence is disputing the fact that it was Manaka’s car which hit Watkins. When Manaka was testifying, he made it clear that his car “hit nobody”.
The state is arguing that damage was found under Manaka’s car and because it was the only vehicle which had been moving on the scene, it had to have been his car which hit Watkins and killed her.
The only other vehicles on the scene were the bakkie which had been driven through the wall and whose driver had fled the scene, and a vehicle belonging to a local security company, which had responded and been sent to the scene of the bakkie crash.
It is the defence’s view that a slippery, wet road surface was the only reason Manaka lost control of his vehicle. He was not drunk, the defence said.
Since the bakkie driver also testified that the cause of his accident was also due to a slippery road surface, Manaka’s version of events is reasonable and probable, the defence told the court.
It is the state’s view that Manaka did not fare well on the witness stand and even insinuated that the bakkie which Watkins had been photographing when she was knocked down and killed, could have been the vehicle which drove over her.
The state called Manaka an “appalling” witness who couldn’t provide clear answers in court because he was not of a clear mind at the time of the accident.
It is the state’s opinion that Manaka caused the death of Watkins by driving recklessly and under the influence of an intoxicating substance.
The state told the court that the road surface had nothing to do with his losing control of his vehicle as four other people, who testified and had driven the same stretch of road shortly after 1am that morning, were able to control their vehicles in the rainy weather conditions.
