“I Deny That”: Zurenah Smit’s Defiant Stand in Husband’s Murder Trial

The atmosphere in the Western Cape High Court this week was one of sharp contrasts. On one side, the methodical, pointed questioning of the State. On the other, the steady, unflinching denials of Zurenah Smit. The woman accused of orchestrating the murder of her wealthy farmer husband, Stefan Smit, returned to the witness stand, looking the court directly in the eye and defending her innocence on all charges.

Gone was the need for an interpreter that marked her earlier appearances. This time, Smit testified clearly in English, fielding questions about a complex web of allegations: murder, robbery, and fraud centered on a disputed will.

The Heart of the State’s Case: “Biting the Hand That Feeds You”

State prosecutor Renee Uys framed the state’s narrative in blunt terms, describing the alleged murder plot as “biting the hand that feeds you.” The prosecution’s aim was to paint a picture of calculated greed. Uys meticulously walked Smit through the financial paper trailan ante-nuptial agreement from their 2005 marriage, followed by wills from 2008 and 2009 naming Zurenah as a trustee and beneficiary of millions.

But the crux of the fraud charge hinges on a 2019 will, which Zurenah claims she simply found in her husband’s diary. “I did not draft that will or sign the document,” she told the court. State prosecutor Uys challenged this version with stark logic, arguing that with Smit’s “liberty at stake… your version does not make sense.”

Uys submitted that only one person stood to gain everything from Stefan Smit’s death: “and that is you.”
Smit’s reply was a firm, quiet rebuttal: “I deny that.”

A Shadow from a Separate Courtroom

Hanging over the proceedings is the weight of a prior civil judgment. In 2022, in a separate matter, Judge Babalwa Pearl Mantame ruled the 2019 will null and void. More damningly, Judge Mantame drew a sharp inference from the evidence: that Zurenah had forged the documents for her benefit and was “instrumental in the killing of the deceased” to seize control of the entire estate.

While not binding on the criminal trial, this finding forms the haunting backdrop to the State’s cross-examination, a previous judicial conclusion that the prosecution is now urging the criminal court to reach.

Denials on All Fronts

The testimony covered more than the will. Smit also outright denied any involvement in a robbery on June 2, 2019, where safe keys and R16,000 in cash were taken from her husband. Asked by her attorney, Susan Kuun, if she helped plan the theft, Smit answered, “not at all.”

As the matter adjourns to continue on Wednesday, the courtroom battle lines are sharply drawn. The State is building a case of a wife who turned on her benefactor, weaving together motive, opportunity, and what they allege is fabricated evidence. Zurenah Smit, from the stand, projects a picture of a wronged woman, her version of events a direct refutation of every claim.

The outcome hinges on which story the court believes. For now, Smit’s repeated defense”I deny that”echoes as the mantra of her fight for freedom.