Courtroom Tension and a Judge Under Scrutiny: How a “Clarification” Session Turned Into the Trial’s Most Controversial Moment
What unfolded in court this morning was supposed to be routine.

After a full day of cross-examination by the prosecution and a re-examination by the defense, the proceedings had reached the stage where the bench may ask questions of clarification.

In legal terms, this is meant to be neutral ground.

The court seeks only to clarify ambiguities, not to advance either side’s case.

But what actually happened has ignited serious concern among legal observers, defense counsel, and members of the public who were following the trial closely.

At the center of the controversy is Judge Rata, whose questioning of the defense witness Makos has been widely criticized as crossing the line from clarification into something resembling cross-examination.

The implications are significant, not only for the admissibility of a disputed statement, but for perceptions of judicial neutrality in a case already burdened by allegations of police misconduct.

What “Clarification” Is Supposed to Mean
In South African criminal procedure, the role of the judge during witness testimony is carefully defined.

When the prosecution and defense finish questioning, the court may ask limited questions to clarify issues that appear unclear or insufficiently explained.

These questions are not meant to:

Test credibility
Challenge a witness’s version
Suggest inferences favorable to one party
They are meant to ensure the court understands the evidence before it.

This distinction matters.

A judge who appears to descend into the arena risks undermining the fairness of the trial and creating grounds for appeal.

It is against this standard that today’s events must be measured.

The First Red Flag: The “Christian School” Question
The controversy began almost immediately.

Judge Rata asked Makos whether he had attended a Christian school.

The question appeared to confuse the witness, who struggled to understand its relevance.

It soon became clear that the judge was steering toward an issue of understanding an oath.

The implication, according to defense observers, was that because Makos may have had a Christian education, he should have understood the binding nature of the oath allegedly administered when the disputed statement was taken.

This line of questioning raised immediate concern.

As defense counsel later emphasized, religious education does not equate to legal training.

There is no rule of law that assumes a person understands the technical or legal implications of an oath simply because they attended a Christian school or studied religious subjects.

Critics argue that this question introduced a moral inference rather than clarifying factual evidence.

From Clarification to Cross-Examination

The tension escalated when the judge questioned Makos about whether Gininda had forced him to initial each page of the statement allegedly attributed to him.

This question, according to legal commentators, was not neutral.

It closely resembled a classic prosecutorial tactic: suggesting that initialing each page implies voluntary participation and acceptance of the contents.

That is precisely the kind of inference typically explored during cross-examination, not judicial clarification.

The implication was clear: if Makos initialed every page, then he must have read and agreed to the statement.

But Makos has consistently denied that the statement was ever read back to him.

He testified that he was handed papers, instructed to sign, and complied simply because he was exhausted, ill, and desperate to leave and go to work.

From the defense perspective, the judge’s question appeared to undermine that version rather than clarify it.

The Dictation Question and Its Consequences
Judge Rata then asked whether Gininda had dictated the contents of the statement to Makos.

Again, critics argue this was not a clarifying question.

It introduced a binary framing: if Gininda did not dictate the contents, then the contents must have come from Makos himself.

That framing mirrors prosecutorial logic.

By this stage, observers say the cumulative effect of the questions suggested the judge had already formed a view that the statement was genuine and voluntarily made.

This perception was deeply troubling to the defense, especially given the number of discrepancies surrounding the statement’s origin.

The Location Mystery: Kempton Park or Yeoville?
One of the most serious unresolved issues in the case concerns where the statement was allegedly taken and where it was commissioned.

Makos testified that he met Gininda in Kempton Park, inside a boardroom with several officers present, including colleagues identified as Moane and others.

Yet the statement presented by the prosecution was commissioned at Yeoville police station.

There is no clear explanation in the prosecution’s case for why a statement allegedly taken in Kempton Park would be commissioned somewhere else, nor why Makos claims to know nothing about this commissioning process.

Defense counsel argue this inconsistency strongly supports their claim that the statement was “cooked” after the fact.

As one observer put it, “Cooking is a difficult business. You can fabricate content, but stitching together the logistics without leaving gaps is another matter entirely.”
The suggestion is that officers drafted the statement elsewhere, later realized it required formal commissioning, and then chose the nearest station convenient at the time.

If true, this would raise serious questions about police integrity and the admissibility of the evidence.

A Pattern of Unequal Scrutiny?

Adding to the controversy is the perception that Judge Rata has not subjected prosecution witnesses to the same level of probing.

Multiple prosecution witnesses have reportedly delivered inconsistent testimony throughout the trial.

Yet observers say the court did not interrogate those inconsistencies with comparable intensity or skepticism.

By contrast, the defense witness was subjected to what many described as “cross-examination disguised as clarification.”
This perceived imbalance fuels accusations that the court may be leaning toward the prosecution’s version, consciously or not.

While judges are presumed impartial, justice must also be seen to be impartial.

Perception matters.

Makos’s Testimony: Fatigue, Pressure, and Compliance
Makos’s own account remains consistent.

He testified that:
Nothing was read back to him
He was not informed of the contents
He was tired, unwell, and frustrated
He simply wanted to leave and return to work
He described a scenario familiar in allegations of police misconduct: a civilian overwhelmed by authority figures, complying mechanically without meaningful consent.

Defense counsel emphasized that initialing pages does not prove understanding, especially when a witness is not given the opportunity to read or hear the statement.

A Judge Who “Already Made Up His Mind”?

Perhaps the most alarming takeaway from today’s proceedings is the defense’s belief that Judge Rata has already decided the disputed statement is admissible.

This belief is reinforced by the court’s apparent reluctance to allow a full evidentiary challenge to the statement’s origins.

Observers now suggest that today’s questioning revealed the real reason the statement was not subjected to deeper scrutiny earlier: the judge may already have accepted it as genuine.

If that perception holds, the trial enters dangerous territory.

A judge who appears to pre-judge contested evidence risks undermining the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Why This Moment Matters
This is not merely a procedural squabble.

The admissibility of the disputed statement could decisively shape the outcome of the trial.

If accepted, it strengthens the prosecution’s case significantly.

If excluded, it weakens it just as dramatically.

More broadly, the episode raises uncomfortable questions about:
Judicial overreach
The boundary between clarification and advocacy
The treatment of defense witnesses versus prosecution witnesses
Public confidence in the courts
South Africa’s legal system rests on the principle that courts must not only be fair, but appear fair.

When that appearance is damaged, trust erodes quickly.

What Happens Next
The defense is expected to respond formally, potentially placing objections on record that could later form part of an appeal.

Legal analysts will continue to dissect today’s proceedings, while civil society watches closely for signs of systemic bias or procedural shortcuts.

For now, the trial continues.

But after this morning, it does so under a heavier cloud.

The judge’s questions may have been framed as clarification, but their impact was anything but neutral.