The witness from towing company Cape Road Assist caved in during cross-examination, telling the Western Cape High Court that Ralph Stanfield was not the man who told him to tow away an alleged stolen BMW.
Alleged underworld crime boss Stanfield, his wife Nicole Johnson and others face serious charges under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), including allegedly being part of a pattern of criminal activity, theft and fraud.
During proceedings on Wednesday, November,11, 2026, the witness claimed he received a call from his manager, Sean, instructing him to assist his client, Stanfield, at Palm Springs in Brooklyn.
The witness testified about the documentation completed on November 24, 2022, specifically receipt number 54418 from a 50-page receipt book.
Defence highlights conflicting accounts
The document is significant because the witness allegedly handed the yellow copy to accused number two, Nicole Johnson, who signed off on the towing job.
Senior Counsel Laurence Hodes began the defence’s cross-examination by handing the witness a copy of his written statement. Hodes then questioned the witness about a second statement, although the witness told the court that he did not know what had happened to it.
The cross-examination focused on probing discrepancies between the witness's prior written police statement, his earlier testimony, and video evidence shown in court.
Hodes highlighted the apparent inconsistency between the video footage and the witness’s earlier testimony. While the footage clearly showed a police vehicle at Palm Springs, the witness had made no mention of any police vehicle during his earlier statement and testimony.
Witness challenged over who authorised tow
After initially giving conflicting responses, the witness eventually conceded under questioning that a police vehicle was present when he arrived at the scene. He further confirmed that an officer was seated in the driver's seat.
The defence further highlighted an apparent contradiction in the witness’s account by referring him to paragraph four of his written statement. It states that after Sean, the manager, provided authorisation details over the phone, a man wearing black jeans and a blue top confirmed that the vehicle could be towed.
The defence team also confronted the witness with his earlier testimony in court, in which he claimed that the instruction to tow the vehicle came from a man wearing a black-and-grey tracksuit, whom he identified as accused number one, Stanfield.
Hodes continued to challenge the witness over inconsistencies between his written statement and his testimony in court regarding who authorised the towing of the vehicle.
Referring to paragraph four of his statement, as well as his evidence earlier in the day, Hodes reminded the witness that he had initially stated that a man wearing black jeans and a blue top permitted the vehicle to be towed.
However, during his testimony after lunch adjournment on 10 November, the witness claimed that it was a man wearing a grey-and-black tracksuit, identified as accused number one, Stanfield.
Under sustained questioning, the witness eventually changed that; according to his original statement and earlier testimony, it was the man wearing the blue top who had authorised the towing.
When pressed further about the identity of this individual, the witness confirmed that he did not know the man's name or who he was.