Court questions self-confessed killer Amber Lee Hughes’ testimony after lying under oath
On Thursday, the court heard both the State and defence’s final arguments before judgement can be handed down on 28 August 2025.
Self-confessed killer Amber Lee Hughes appeared before the Johannesburg High Court on Thursday, 7 August 2025. Picture: Simphiwe Nkosi/EWN
JOHANNESBRUG - The Johannesburg High Court has questioned the validity of self-confessed killer Amber Lee Hughes’ testimony after she lied under oath.
Hughes was arrested after murdering her ex-partner’s daughter in 2023 by drowning her in a bathtub.
On Thursday, the court heard both the State and defence’s final arguments before judgement can be handed down on 28 August 2025.
The former pre-school teacher’s defence team argued that Hughes did not plan to murder the 4-year-old.
ALSO READ: Nada-Jane Challita’s father not shocked by new admissions ex made about daughter’s death
Meanwhile, the State highlighted the volatile texts that Hughes and Elie Challita exchanged on the day Nada Jane died - which contained threats from Hughes
Judge Richard Mkhabela questioned why he should consider Hughes’ statement after she lied to the court for two years.
"The matter was delayed. Then comes a huge about turn, making all this testimony of this witness as far as matter is concerned irrelevant, and the agony caused by the calling of this witness to the deceased family. What should I make of it?"
The State has decided not to challenge one of the charges against Hughes.
Prosecutor Rolene Barnard explained why they won’t be challenging the first rape count.
“The evidence that the medical evidence proves that it’s my submission that the medical evidence and the totality of evidence prove that the accused committed the act of vaginal rape. There's no evidence that the accused committed the offence in count one. And in respect of count one only, that it's anal penetration, but not count two, that it's a vaginal penetration with a fresh injury.
She also shed light on why they won’t be challenging the first rape count.
"The evidence that the medical evidence proves that it’s my submission that the medical evidence and the totality of evidence prove that the accused committed the act of vaginal rape. There's no evidence that the accused committed the offence in count one. And in respect of count one only, that it's anal penetration, but not count two, that it's a vaginal penetration with a fresh injury," said Barnard.
The matter was postponed for judgment in three weeks.