Parents’ credibility questioned in Tee case

Defence advocates acting for the men accused of killing little Aaliyah ‘Angel’ Tee questioned the credibility of her parents, but were at pains to ensure the court knew they were doing so on instruction from their clients.

The accused, Nealon Redhouse, 18, and Deon “Kwas” Harmse, 24, are facing eight charges including murder, attempted murder, house robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm.

It is alleged the pair forced their way into the Barberry Street, Bethelsdorp, home of Candice and Edmund Tee on June 7, 2016 before shooting Edmund and killing Aaliyah, 12.

Aaliyah was shot once in the head, execution style, while Edmund was shot in the left arm, hip and neck.

He is now a paraplegic and had both legs amputated below the knee. During the trial both the Tees identified Harmse and Redhouse as the shooters.

State prosecutor Mujaahid Sandan told the Port Elizabeth High Court that it was undisputed that the pair were known to the Tees prior to the attack.

Prior knowledge of the accused, good visibility to identify them and enough time to see their attackers added to their credibility, Sandan said.

Both Redhouse and Harmse pleaded not guilty saying they had not been near the Tee house on the night of the shooting.

Of the accused, Sandan said Redhouse and Harmse had not played open cards, were evasive and fabricated their versions of events as the trial continued.
Advocate Jodine Coertzen, representing Redhouse, said the Tees could not be criticised for not identifying their attackers or omitting other information in their initial statements to police. “One cannot lose sight of the physical pain Mr Tee was in or the trauma both had experienced,” she said.

Clearly stating that she was acting under instruction from her client, Coertzen said that there were contradictions in both the Tees’ testimony.

These included where Candice met police when they arrived on the scene, if the attackers had broken down the front door and if couches were moved in the house.

Coertzen said Edmund’s testimony on which hand, left or right, he saw come through a gap in the door while he was trying to keep it closed was also in dispute.

“I am obligated and acting under instructions to say that the state has not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt,” Coertzen said.

Advocate James Reilly, representing Harmse, said he had been instructed by his client to point out that the Tees had mistakenly identified his client.

He claimed this was due to rumours that the Tees were targets after witnessing the murder of Donovan “Staal” Berry a month before the attack.

“[Candice Tee’s] evidence cannot be criticised, but there is a possibility that it may be inaccurate,” Reilly said.

“The shock and trauma could have affected their recollection.”