State advocate confronts defence over conflicting versions in Govender brothers murder trial

Drama unfolded in the Durban High Court when senior State advocate Krishen Shah challenged the defence team for Ferrel Govender over what Shah said were two conflicting versionsMeridian Park in Umhlanga when businessman Shailen Singh was shot dead on December 29, 2024. Ferrel is on trial alongside his younger brother, Darren, for Singh’s murder.

Dispute over versions put to witness

The row began after advocate Mike Hellens SC, representing Ferrel, was interrupted on Monday while putting the defence’s account to a witness. Hellens was interrupted by instructing attorney Arvina Harricharan and advocate Joe Wolmarans, but Shah noted that Ferrel himself did not indicate the version being presented was incorrect.

On Monday, Hellens told the witness the brothers had gone to Meridian Park for lunch at a nearby restaurant. When the matter resumed on Tuesday, Hellens instead put a different version: that Ferrel would testify he had gone to Meridian Park to meet his brother for lunch, arrived and was on his cellphone for a while, then heard gunshots, realised it was dangerous and left.

The witness rejected the cellphone element of that account, maintaining that Ferrel was not on his cellphone.

Recordings, adjournments and the judge’s ruling

During re-examination, Shah recorded that two different versions had been put to the witness and asked that Monday’s court recording be played. Hellens sought a short adjournment before the recording was played; Shah opposed the request.

Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa said the disagreement between counsel should not be argued in the presence of the witness and granted an adjournment, but technical delays prevented the recording from being played and the trial proceeded. The judge said:

“Since the defence and the State do not agree on the version put by Mr Hellens yesterday before the matter was adjourned, it is on record. This matter must not be delayed unnecessarily.”

Witness places Ferrel at the scene

The witness, described in court as a former employee at an Umhlanga restaurant, testified that immediately after the shooting he saw a black BMW X5 speeding away from the scene, followed by a black Ford Ranger. He said he was able to identify Ferrel as the driver of the BMW because the passenger window was open.

Hellens disputed that the window was open, saying it had not been functioning. The witness remained firm that the window was open and, after completing his evidence, with the court’s leave he referred to a photograph of the BMW X5 and pointed to what he said showed the driver’s window was open. He said:

“It clearly shows that the window was open,”

and added that part of the dashboard and a white wall were visible through the opening. The judge said he could not see what the witness was referring to and Shah suggested viewing an electronic copy of the photograph during the tea adjournment.

After examining the digital image, Shah told the court: “We had a look. We agree that the white speck is not the building but a white vehicle that was parked.”

Additional witness details and safety concerns

Earlier in his testimony the witness said he saw Ferrel standing in front of Singh’s white Toyota Hilux immediately after the shooting, but stressed that he did not see Ferrel firing a weapon or carrying a firearm.

The witness testified that after seeing Ferrel leave the scene, Ferrel’s friend Sandesh Moothee Ram, an individual identified as Malusi (the witness’s former employer), and another African male arrived at the restaurant where he worked. According to the witness and the video footage played in court, all four men were on their cellphones before hastily leaving the restaurant without waiting for drinks they had ordered.

The witness said he later relocated to another province because he feared for his safety, explaining that he knew Ferrel owned a security company, Pro Secure. While working at his new workplace, he said four Indian men arrived asking for him by name. He recognised one as a regular customer from the Umhlanga restaurant, approached their table and told them:

“If you are here for me, you are not doing a good job.”

The witness said the men did not argue or deny it; they paid the bill and left.

What happens next

The trial continues.