Star witness in Joslin Smith case says silence was driven by fear, drugs and hush money

The state’s star witness in the trial for the kidnapping and human trafficking of six-year-old Joslin Smith returned to the stand on Wednesday, admitting to repeatedly lying to police and the media about her knowledge about the child’s disappearance.

Lourentia Lombaard attributed her silence and omissions to fear, anger and drug use — as well as a promised payment of R1 000 for her silence. The matter is being heard in the Western Cape high court, sitting in Saldanha Bay.

Lombaard is testifying in the hopes of being granted indemnity from prosecution, a decision that will only be made by the judge when all the witnesses have been heard, which could include the accused. 

Lombaard has testified that she failed to inform authorities on multiple occasions that Joslin’s mother, Kelly Smith, had allegedly sold the child to a sangoma.

The state says Smith, the third accused in the case, received R20 000 for the child on Sunday, 18 February 2024, with the child being given to the sangoma the next day. Joslin has not been seen since.

Lombaard, who again fell ill and was assisted from the courtroom on Tuesday, resumed cross-examination on Wednesday by Rinesh Sivnarain, the attorney for Smith.

Under questioning — with frequent interjections and clarifications from Judge Nathan Erasmus — Lombaard acknowledged that she had had several opportunities to disclose what she knew to police but chose not to.

She portrayed herself as a bystander in media interviews, despite knowing about the events surrounding the child’s disappearance. 

According to her testimony, Smith allegedly offered her R1 000 to remain silent — a payment that was never made.

Joslin was allegedly sold “for her eyes and skin”, Lombaard previously told the court.

Lombaard’s history of withholding information from authorities dates back to the night of Joslin’s disappearance.

She admitted to lying to police during their first visit, to remaining silent the following day and to making a false confession during her initial arrest. 

She claims that her first truthful account was in her section 204 statement, made in October 2024, when she formally became a state witness.

Prompted by Erasmus during testimony, Lombaard confirmed that the R1 000 she had been promised played a role in her decision not to come forward. “That’s correct,” she said, when asked if the money had influenced her silence.

Sivnarain pressed Lombaard on why she had not informed police immediately when, by her own account, she overheard Smith telling her partner, Jacquen “Boeta” Appollis (accused number one), about the plan to sell Joslin.

This conversation, she testified, occurred at the couple’s shack on February 18, while one of Smith’s sons was in another room and Joslin played outside.

Lombaard further claimed that accused number two, Stefano van Rhyn — a friend of the couple — would also have heard the plan because Smith “was speaking very loudly.” According to Lombaard, Van Rhyn was offered R1200 to remain silent, a claim he has denied.

All four adults involved in the case were under the influence of either tik or mandrax during the days surrounding the child’s disappearance. They have admitted to regular drug use.

According to court testimony, Joslin went missing during the afternoon of February 19. Smith only reported the child missing around 9 pm that evening, saying she had spent the hours before that searching for her.

Lombaard testified that police visited the shack she shares with her husband, Ayanda, and their children late on the night of February 19 or early the next morning.

Although she had already overheard Smith discussing the plan to sell her daughter, Lombaard said she did not volunteer this information to the officers. 

Instead, she told Smith — within earshot of police — to “tell the police what you did with your child.”

The officers, she claimed, “just walked away.”

Pressed by Sivnarain as to why she did not speak directly to the police, Lombaard responded: “I was scared. I didn’t know how to tell the police after we decided we weren’t going to tell anyone.”

“You were scared to tell them but you told [Smith] to tell them?” Sivnarain asked.

“That’s correct,” she replied.

When asked what she had feared, Lombaard answered, “That they would lock me up.”

Erasmus interjected to clarify whether the R1 000 Smith had allegedly promised her for remaining silent had played a role in her inaction. Lombaard confirmed that it had. 

“What role?” Erasmus asked.

“We weren’t supposed to tell anyone,” she responded.

The judge pressed further: “You told [Smith] she must tell the police what she did with her child. You weren’t scared to say that to [Smith] in front of the police?”

“I wasn’t scared, I was angry,” Lombaard said.

“You just told me you were scared. What is it now — scared or angry?” Erasmus asked.

“Angry,” Lombaard replied, saying it was anger that made her raise her voice when confronting Smith in front of the police.

All three accused have pleaded not guilty. 

The trial continues.