The defence team in the Phala Phala robbery case asserts the prosecution’s evidence remains entirely circumstantial as the trial approaches its conclusion. Lawyers for the three accused argue that the State has not presented any direct evidence linking the defendants to the crime scene – President Ramaphosa’s farm – or to the stolen funds. Months of testimony and presented evidence have failed to definitively place the accused inside the farm during the alleged robbery. The defence contends that the prosecution relies on inferences and assumptions rather than concrete proof of involvement. This argument centers on the lack of evidence directly connecting the accused to the stolen money or the physical act of the robbery itself. The trial’s outcome hinges on whether the court finds the circumstantial evidence presented by the State compelling enough to secure a conviction. Closing arguments are expected soon.