AKA Murder Trial: Shocking Evidence Emerges as CCTV Footage, Ballistics and Fingerprints Take Centre Stage

The murder trial of South African rapper Kiernan “AKA” Forbes and his close friend, celebrity chef and businessman Tebello “Tibz” Motsoane, continues to attract widespread public attention as the court examines evidence relating to their tragic deaths in Durban.

The two men were shot dead outside a restaurant on Florida Road on 10 February 2023, in a case that sent shockwaves across South Africa and the entertainment industry. AKA was one of the country's most celebrated hip-hop artists, while Tibz had established himself as a respected figure in the food, entertainment and business sectors.

More than three years after the killings, the legal proceedings have brought forward several important strands of evidence, including CCTV footage, ballistic findings, fingerprint analysis and testimony concerning a firearm allegedly recovered during an arrest.

The case has attracted considerable interest because of the questions surrounding the planning and execution of the shooting, the alleged roles of the accused, and whether the evidence presented by the prosecution will ultimately establish the case against them beyond reasonable doubt.

CCTV footage becomes a major focus in court

One of the significant developments reported during the trial in October 2026 involved CCTV footage from King Shaka International Airport.

According to reports from the proceedings, the court heard testimony about a man who appeared to follow AKA around the airport on the day he was killed. The prosecution's case includes allegations that one of the accused, Mziwethemba Gwabini, was connected to the movements of the rapper before the shooting.

The court also heard evidence concerning a grey BMW allegedly linked to Gwabini. Reports indicated that the vehicle was allegedly seen following AKA from the airport towards his hotel and later to Florida Road, where the fatal shooting took place.

Investigators and prosecutors are seeking to establish a timeline of events leading up to the attack. Surveillance recordings can be important in criminal proceedings because they may help investigators identify vehicles, establish movements and compare different accounts of what happened.

However, the footage must be assessed carefully. The appearance of a person in a recording, or a vehicle travelling along a particular route, does not automatically prove that the person was involved in a crime. The court must consider the quality of the footage, the identification evidence and the wider circumstances.

The defence is entitled to challenge the prosecution's interpretation of the recordings, and the court will ultimately determine what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from them.

Ballistic evidence places firearms under scrutiny

Another important aspect of the proceedings concerns forensic ballistics.

Ballistics experts examine firearms, bullets and cartridge cases to determine whether particular pieces of ammunition may have been fired from a specific weapon. This type of evidence can help investigators establish connections between a firearm and a shooting, although the strength of any conclusion depends on the findings and the circumstances in which the evidence was collected.

During testimony reported in connection with the AKA and Tibz trial, a police ballistics expert, Ruwain Kader, discussed cartridge cases recovered from the scene outside the Florida Road restaurant.

Reports indicated that six cartridge cases were recovered and that two were linked to a firearm the prosecution alleges was recovered from Siyanda Eddie Myeza, one of the accused.

The evidence also reportedly included a significant limitation: a bullet recovered from Tibz's body did not match that particular firearm.

This distinction matters because a shooting involving multiple shots or potentially more than one firearm requires investigators to examine each piece of forensic evidence separately. A finding connecting cartridge cases to one weapon does not necessarily establish that the same weapon fired every bullet recovered during the investigation.

The prosecution must therefore explain how the ballistic findings fit into its overall account of the killings.

The defence, in turn, can question the interpretation of the forensic results and whether the evidence supports the conclusions being advanced by the State.

For families seeking answers, forensic evidence can be an important part of the process of establishing what happened. Nevertheless, the court must assess the evidence objectively rather than relying on assumptions or public speculation.

Fingerprint evidence raises questions

Fingerprint analysis has also featured in reports about the trial.

On 20 October 2026, a forensic fingerprint analyst reportedly testified about samples collected from a vehicle connected to the separate 2022 shooting of taxi boss Gift Khanyile in Mayville.

According to reports, the analyst told the court that fingerprints matched those of Myeza. The defence questioned aspects of the evidence, including the circumstances in which the fingerprints were collected and whether there could be an innocent explanation for their presence.

One argument raised concerned Myeza's previous work at a carwash, which the defence suggested could be relevant when considering how his fingerprints might have come to be on a vehicle.

The significance of fingerprint evidence depends on several factors. These include the reliability of the comparison, the location of the prints, the handling of the samples and the circumstances in which the accused may have come into contact with the object.

A fingerprint match may establish that a person touched a particular surface, but it does not automatically establish when the contact occurred or why the person was there.

In a criminal trial, the State must explain how the evidence relates to the charges before the court. The defence has the right to challenge the analysis and present alternative explanations.

The court will need to evaluate the fingerprint testimony in the context of the broader case rather than treating an isolated forensic finding as conclusive proof of involvement in the murders.