NPA excuses assault argument against DJ Fresh and DJ Euphonik


NPA excuses assault argument against DJ Fresh and DJ Euphonik

NPA excuses assault argument against DJ Fresh and DJ Euphonik

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has excused the instance of crimen injuria opened by Thato “DJ Fresh” Sikwane and DJ Themba “Euphonik” Nkosi in April against a supposed assault casualty referred to on Twitter as Nampree.

In an explanation, NPA representative Lumka Mahanjana said they had chosen not to indict the charge of criminal maligning as they accept there would no chance of an effective arraignment.

“The NPA can affirm a choice not to initiate indictment dependent on charges of criminal distortion was taken. The NPA is of the view there are no possibilities of a fruitful criminal indictment.

“The lawyers have been educated appropriately.”

The two men opened the body of evidence against the lady recently after she affirmed the DJs had tranquilized and assaulted her in 2011 at a chillas (little party) she went to with, an evidently welcomed companion by one of the DJs.

Addressing TshisaLIVE, the lady said she invited the choice to drop the case. She said she would be going to prison for basically expressing her fact if the NPA chose to arraign.

“I invite the choice by the NPA since it declined the case twice, even after they pursued. Should they have not declined, I would have been condemned. I’d have a criminal records for just expressing my reality,” she said.

The DJs have been buried in contention after the lady blamed them for assault in a post on Twitter.

In a meeting with TshisaLIVE, the lady affirmed she had opened a case with the Sunnyside police headquarters on January 13.

In February, the NPA said the assault argument against the two DJs had been excused because of “deficient proof”.

“Concerning the DJs Fresh and Euphonik matter, the agenda was introduced to the investigator. Endless supply of all the accessible proof in the agenda, a choice not to arraign was taken. There are no possibilities of effective indictment on the accessible proof on the grounds that the proof is deficient,” Lumka clarified.