atOptions = {
'key' : '463523574f2e9cbaf8ed38aebca8c550',
'format' : 'iframe',
'height' : 90,
'width' : 728,
'params' : {}
};
document.write('ALSO READ: Senzo Meyiwa murder trial: All the twists and turns you need to know about
‘SENZO: MURDER OF A SOCCER STAR’ RECAP
The popular docuseries on Netflix set tongues wagging on Twitter when it was aired. The fifth and final episode of the docuseries focused on the five hitmen accused of murdering Senzo. The documentary claims that accused number two, Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi, “snitched” on the other three accused.
Sinqobile Maphisa — the sister of accused number four, Mthokoziseni Ziphozonke Maphisa — said that she does not believe her brother murdered Senzo.
In the documentary, Senzo’s brother Sfiso Meyiwa appears to believe her. Accused number four also claimed that accused number two was paid R3 million to incriminate the other three accused in court.
“We are now being used as scapegoats,” said Maphisa.
ALSO READ: Longwe Twala accused of killing Senzo? Why this theory may add up
SHOULD PRODUCTION HOUSES BE ALLOWED TO FILM IN COURT?
The moral question posed in court today (30 May) is whether production houses should be filming for profit in court. Advocate Winks defended his client by stating that Carte Blanche, a weekly news programme was allowed to film in the courtroom for the Oscar Pistorius trial.
He stated that documentary producers are media houses. So, he feels that his client should be allowed to stay.
“Documentary makers are media houses. My client is not relying on the general permission of other media houses. My client submitted an application to the Registrar and it was approved,” said Advocate Winks.
Advocate Teffo argued that Ten10 Films was present in court for the profit of their company and not for public interest. However, this could apply to any other media houses filming and taking photos in a courtroom as they can also be classified as profit organisations.
