Word on the street: Have gratitude, not attitude

Colossians 3:15 – “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.”

Living life with an attitude of gratitude is both healthy and Godly.

The Lord expects us not to be bitter, angry, scared and full of complaints, but to be joyful, peaceful bold and compassionate.

Being grateful is a choice. Thankful people realise and acknowledge that all good and perfect gifts come from God, and that He ought to be thanked for them.

Ungrateful people on the other hand believe that the world owes them something, that their social or economic standing, be it poverty or wealth entitles them to certain benefits.

These kinds of people are often critical. They ridicule, slander and proverbially ‘bite the hand that feeds them’.

What kind of person are you today? You must always remember that there is somebody who looks up to you so much that they will embrace and imitate what you do without thinking twice.

You carry a lot of influence simply because you are made in God’s image.

Therefore instead of criticising other people, let us publicly applaud and celebrate what they do right and privately pray to God to strengthen them in their time of weakness.

I’m sure that’s how all of us would love to be treated.

It begins with you. Think of at least three people who could draw strength and courage from your compliments.

Now I dare you to find them and congratulate them to their face. Let us begin a new trend of true positive living for our children. It is never too late to make a change.

Here’s something to help you get started:

Father God, today I take responsibility and decide to be thankful.

Thank you for my life, family, community and nation.

I am grateful for your Son Jesus Christ.

Help me see and take advantage of opportunities to be both thankful and affirming to others.

I love you because you first loved me. Amen

Ebola: Ebola: The Ripple Effect

20-07-2014

A tear dropped from his left eye as he thought about Anna again. How could she be dead? How? Anna, the best sister anyone could ever have. Anna, his only sister … who made so many sacrifices to ensure he went to college and become the man he is today.

Anna. Dead.

What is this life?

“Tea or coffee sir…?” Munachi – the air hostess –asked, snapping him out of his reverie. He dried his eyes and gestured towards coffee. He nodded his thanks as she gave it to him and went about her business.

He took a sip of the scalding hot beverage and didn’t even flinch. All he could think of was Anna and how he wept over her cold dead body. He had flown to Monrovia immediately he was told that she was seriously ill. The doctors had initially refused to allow him see her, saying it was unsafe, but one look at them and they obliged. Patrick was a big man. In Liberia and other African countries, big men always had their way.

That all seemed like years ago though. He had given her a quick burial and was now on his way back to Nigeria. He took another sip of the coffee and this time he felt as it burned his tongue. He let out a tiny whelp and dropped the mug. It shattered, spilling its content everywhere. He quickly made to pick up the shards, but cut his forefinger in the process. He put the finger in his mouth and sucked the blood as Munachi came to his aid.

“So sorry sir,” she apologized. “Are you alright?” she gestured towards his forefinger. He nodded, stood up, and went to the restroom.

The cut wasn’t too deep, but he had plenty of blood in him, so the red liquid flowed. He picked up a Kleenex and pressed on it. It became bloodied in seconds. He dropped the tissue in the toilet bowl and collected another. After the third Kleenex, the blood had almost stopped flowing. He pressed the knob and watched as the toilet flushed. He did not notice the tiny drops of blood he left on the knob. He turned on the tap, washed his hand and turned it off. He did not notice the blood he left on the tap head either. He dried his hand and left the toilet. Munachi had cleaned up when he got back to his seat. She offered another cup of coffee but he declined and, suddenly cold, he asked for a blanket instead. She obliged him – some of the perks of not flying economy class.

***

Bishop Samuel Ndah of Royal Diadem Ministries had gone to Monrovia to minister at the Liberian branch of his church. It was a power packed 3 day crusade that ended with miracles, signs, wonders, and some extra dollars in his off-shore bank account. He was going to Australia in two weeks to set up another branch there.

The ministry was seriously moving. The Lord is good.

He used the toilet a few minutes after Patrick did. Of cause he washed his hand thoroughly. One of his favorite quotes was ‘Cleanliness is next to Godliness’, and as a Bishop of Christ, he always practiced what he preached. When he turned the tap head to close it though, he did not notice the drops of blood his fingers collected. He ate Chicken and Chips a few minutes later; chicken so good he licked his fingers afterwards, and washed it down with a bottle of the cold orange juice Munachi served him.

Two other business-class passengers used the toilet during the 165minutes flight.

***

Patrick was sweating when the plane landed at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport. He was sweating and shivering slightly. Munachi wanted to call the airport paramedics but he refused. He explained that he’d just buried his only sister and the past week had been hectic. It was probably fever with a shot of jet-lag. She obliged, called Aisha, her colleague, and they helped him disembark. He almost fell when they made to leave him on the tarmac. He steadied himself and told them he was fine. They left him and went back into the plane. He sort of staggered to the customs area and gave the immigration officer his passport.

The officer scrutinized Patrick’s travel papers and returned them to him. The Liberian was walking into the arrival lounge when he collapsed in a heap. It was like a joke. For a few seconds nobody reacted. Then somebody yelled and all hell broke loose.

“What happened to him? Who is he? How did it happen?” Everybody seemed to be asking at the same time as a small crowd gathered around Patrick. Jemila, an Airport security woman pushed her way through and asked everyone to back off. She checked his pulse and proceeded to give him CPR. She was doing the mouth to mouth resuscitation thing when paramedics arrived and put him on their stretcher. They took him straight to the Airport clinic, while somebody checked Patrick’s wallet for his ID. They found he was a Liberian and worked in the Liberian Embassy. They called the consulate and informed them that their countryman had collapsed in the Airport. The Liberian high commissioner immediately had him transferred to First Consultant Clinics, a private hospital at Obalende.

***

21-07-14

Dr Abdullah Isah, the Chief Medical Officer of First Consultants Hospital had just begun a complex 7 hours marathon surgery on a 13 year old boy’s lungs when Patrick was wheeled in. After the successful operation, he had taken a 6 hour break. When he came back, he started his usual ward rounds with Dr Abiye – the doctor on duty. They got to the Liberian’s ward and Dr Abiye gave his boss the man’s case file. A quick glance at it and he had an idea what was ailing the man. He pulled Dr Abiye to one side and told him in confidence what he suspected was the cause of Patrick’s ailment.

Ebola Virus.

Dr Abiye’s jaw dropped. “Jesus,” he exclaimed. “Jesus!” He had been at the waiting room when Patrick was wheeled in. He had checked his vitals and placed him on drips and stabilizers pending when a proper diagnosis was carried out. He had been in close contact with a probable carrier of the deadliest disease on earth at the moment. “Jesus!”

Dr Abdullah immediately had Patrick quarantined in a private ward. He also had every member of his staff who had been in close contact with the Liberian quarantined in another ward. He didn’t want to start a panic so he didn’t say why he was taking those measures. He just instructed the other staff not to go into those two wards without face masks, surgical gloves and disposable gowns. He called the Ministry of Health and informed the receiver he might have a case of the Ebola Virus in his hospital. He was transferred to the commissioner of health himself who asked what had been done so far. He brought the big man up to speed and was told to maintain the status quo while the minister of health himself was informed.

Unfortunately Dr Abdullah was working with smart people. Someone put two and two together and the word ‘Ebola’ was mentioned. Less than twenty minutes later, the normally full waiting room was almost empty. Family and friends of patients who heard the rumors came and retrieved their wards. Non-Medical staff who didn’t want to risk being around a virus that dangerous suddenly became ill and asked for permission to go home. They had no plan to return until it was safe to do so.

The three nurses and two porters who were on duty when Patrick was wheeled in had gone home to their families before Dr Abdullah made his analysis. In the midst of the chaos, nobody remembered them.

@Deborah_Patta tweeted about the incidence, someone else retweeted it, and in minutes, the news went viral.

Ebola Virus was in Nigeria.

22-07-2-14

Munachi woke up with a nagging headache; very unusual because she almost never fell sick. She glanced at the clock, 7:19am. How did she wake up this late? She was supposed to be on the 11am Kenyan flight, and by traffic standards, she was late.

She jumped out of the bed, then fell right back in. Her head felt like someone was pounding yam in it. She waited a few minutes, then stood up again, slowly. She went through her morning routines at that pace and was ready to leave by 8:30. Nduka, her cabman had been waiting for her since 8am, the time she’d asked him to come.

“how are you? He greeted. when he noticed how much pain she seemed to be in.

“am fine,” she replied and forced a smile, as he collected her bag and helped her into the car.

They were halfway to the Airport when she knew for certain she would be unable to fly. She called her supervisor and told him her condition. He almost yelled at her bad timing. Aisha had called in sick earlier and he had only just gotten her replacement. But remembering how hardworking Munachi usually was, he told her to go to a clinic and treat herself.

Munachi asked Nduka to take her to any good pharmacy around so she could get drugs. He found one soon enough, drove in, parked, and helped her get into the building. His phone rang and he went outside to answer it. He was negotiating fares for a trip with another customer when people inside the Pharmacy started screaming. He craned his neck to see what was happening and saw Munachi sprawled on the floor. He ended the call and rushed in.

“What is happening…?” he yelled to no one in particular. “Aunty Muna, What happened…?” he cradled her in his arms. “Aunty Muna….” he shook her. No response. “What happened’?” he looked up and asked again. Before he could get any response, the owner of the Pharmacy came out of a side room and asked him to bring her in. He lifted her up and took her in, leaving a trail of blood in his wake. He laid her on the bed and left the medics in the room with her. “What happened?” he asked the nurse at the counter.

“She just fell down,” the visibly shaken woman replied. “She was telling me she had headache when she suddenly fell down. Is she your wi…” she looked him up and down “…is she your madam?” she asked, immediately concluding he couldn’t be such a beautiful lady’s spouse.

He followed the direction of her eyes and noticed the blood stains on his shirt. “Blood…” he muttered. “Where this blood come from?” The nurse pointed at the spot Munachi had lain a few moments ago. There was almost a pool where her head had been. Nduka started sobbing. A few minutes later, an ambulance arrived.

Munachi died on the way to the hospital. The official cause of death was ‘Intracranial Hemorrhage secondary to head trauma from a fall with associated skull fracture and scalp bleeding’. Nobody asked why she fell in the first place. Doctors were on strike. The few who were available had too much work on their hands.

Nduka, the pharmacist, the cleaner at the pharmacy, the paramedics and the mortuary attendants – about 8 persons – were in direct contact with Munachi’s body fluids.

***

23-07-2-14

Jemila was breastfeeding her five month old son when she felt like going to the toilet again – for the 4 time that morning. She passed the baby to her mother-in-law and went to relieve herself. When she came out she complained to mama who said she’d concoct some herbs for her before she returned from work at the Airport. Mama and her bitter tasting herbs she thought. She made a mental note to buy Flagyl en-route.

She never made it to the Airport.

She was collecting the purge-stopping drug from her local chemist when her eye caught the TV news headline, ‘Liberian man in Lagos being tested for Ebola’.

“Please turn the volume up”, she told the Chemist. He did. The clip went on to chronologize the Liberian’s arrival at the Lagos Airport, his collapse and subsequent transfer to a hospital at Ikoyi area. It added that from all the symptoms, he was infected with the deadly virus, and they were only waiting for official confirmation from the lab that it was indeed Ebola. Even before Patrick Sawyer’s picture was displayed on the screen, she knew it was him. She didn’t hear the chemist shouting “Iya Jumoke, your change, your change…” when she rushed out of the drug store. She whipped out her phone and dialed her husband.

“Hello … daddy, there is a problem…” she started when he answered at the 3 ring.

In the 11 years they’d been married, Mr Paul Shaibu, a professional caterer and cook at Federal Palace Hotel, Victoria Island, had never heard those words from his wife. “what's wrong…?” he asked, walking out of the kitchen.

“Remember that incidence at the Airport I told you about? The Liberian I gave first aid?”

He did. “Yes. What’s wrong?”

“I made a mistake. It happened so fast I didn’t have time to look for a medical kit and collect a protective barrier before I gave him mouth to mouth resuscitation. It is recommended that we do that to prevent cross infection, but he had a pulse, yet he was barely breathing. If I had delayed he might have died, and…”

“Mummy, calm down.… are you okay…?” he cut her short.

“I just saw the man on TV. They said he has Ebola virus.” Silence at the other end. “Hello, daddy…”

“I’ll go and pick Jummie and David from school,” he began, in the calmest possible voice. “Just go to Ebony and wait. I’ll tell Dr Ugonna we’re coming. I’ll be there in 30mins.”

Paul was a numb robot when he took off his apron and walked out of the Hotel. He now understood why Jemila had been purging earlier that morning. … Diarrhea …one of the symptoms of the Ebola virus. If she had it, then he had it. They’d made love the previous night. And the night before that. If they had it, then, unless a miracle happened, their 3 children, including five month old Paul Jr had it too. And his mother who had been with them for the past two months…

Paul did not hear the people yelling at him to get off the road. He did not see the Cement Truck nor hear the blaring horns either. He did not feel the impact. He died before he hit the ground. Later, when his body was deposited at the mortuary, the morgue attendant noticed some strange rashes around what was left of Paul’s lower back. He ignored it.

After 40 minutes at Ebony Hospital, Jemila tried Paul’s number. It didn’t connect. She called mama to know if he had come home. She said he hadn’t. She called the school, they confirmed he hadn’t come to pick the kids yet. Something had happened. She felt it. She was standing up to leave when her phone rang. The caller identified himself as a Policeman and asked her to come to the Island Mortuary to identify the body of one Mr Paul Shaibu.

Her screams were heard from miles away …

***

24-07-2014

One of Bishop Samuel Ndah’s most notable attribute was his strong baritone voice. On Thursday, when he woke up, he could barely speak. He had only experienced sore-throat once in his life and it surely didn’t hurt this bad. Nor did it come with weakness of the muscle and troubled breathing. He asked his wife to call his pastors. The devil was at work. That evil being didn’t want him to minister at tonight’s special service. But he was going to, whether Satan liked it or not.

The pastors came, held his hands and prayed. His condition deteriorated.

He was taken to a private hospital some hours later. The doctors are yet to realize he might have the Ebola virus. They’re still giving him treatment for Influenza.

25-07-2014

Patrick Sawyer died and it was later confirmed by the Nigerian Government and WHO that he was indeed carrying the Ebola Virus. 30 people may have been in contact with Patrick Sawyer from the Airplane to the Hospital in Obalende. It could have been more, it could have been less. The government is still trying to track them down.

Huh

Munachi infected Nduka and a host of others. Nduka mourned for a while, but man must wack. He still drives his cab around; he has a wife and baby back home and a girlfriend to take care of. He doesn’t understand why his joints and muscles have been aching him since…

Aisha, Munachi’s colleague, thinks she’s constantly weak because she is pregnant. She also thinks the rashes on her body are because she changed cosmetics. She and her banker husband have no idea…

Jemila’s children were infected. The older ones shared meals, toys and other facilities with their friends in school…the friends have friends, who have families ….

Bishop Samuel Ndah is un-quarantined and has been receiving hundreds of visitors daily; faithful members of his church who greet him with a kiss on his Episcopal ring…

The end

AUTHOR’S NOTE

This story is fiction. Patrick Sawyer is indeed the first known victim of the Ebola virus, but other characters exist only in my imagination. Real locations have been used to make the story as realistic as possible.

One nagging question remains though: are these scenarios not possible?

Could you know someone who knows someone who currently has the virus?

I’d have abandoned my awesome new job and carried my polythene bag back home, but if it is here, is it not only a matter of time before it gets to other parts of Africa?

This is not meant to start a panic though. It is to create awareness that this virus is real and amongst us.

As I write this, there are no equipments to diagnose the virus. There are no centers to quarantine and care for victims. There are no specialists to supervise the control of a possible epidemic. And striking doctors’ demands have still not been met.

I appeal to the African Medical Association to call off their strike. Two wrongs have never made a right. And right now, if an epidemic breaks out, you’re the only hope we have. Please put your heads together, and agree on something positive for the good of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children that make up this entity called Africa. Once Ebola is taken care of, I’m sure the whole Africa would gladly go to strike with you guys.

To everyone reading this, Ebola is real. The symptoms are Fever, sore throat, headache, weakness, joint and muscle pain, chest pain, Diarrhea, rashes, troubled breathing and bleeding from the skin. There is no known cure yet. To reduce risk of infection, wash your hands as often as possible with sanitizer or soap. Always wash your fruits and vegetables before cooking. And finally, avoid contact with people with suspicious signs or those from places where there has been an outbreak.

Cheers,

Oscar Pistorius trial: police had 'no respect' for crime scene Defence lawyer Barry Roux attacks investigators in his closing speech at Oscar Pistorius trial

The defence lawyer for Oscar Pistorius has criticised the way police handled the crime scene where Reeva Steenkamp was killed. During his closing arguments, Barry Roux told the court that there was "no respect" for the crime scene by investigators. Yesterday, the prosecution finished its closing arguments, accusing Pistorius of creating a "snowball of lies" in a bid to escape a murder conviction. Roux is due to finish his speech today. Judge Thokozile Masipa is then expected to adjourn the case for up to a month before delivering her final verdict. Pistorius faces up to 25 years in prison if he is found guilty of deliberately murdering his girlfriend Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Here is what we have heard so far today:

2.15pm: Roux sums up his case, telling Judge Masipa: "If your finding is that [Pistorius's] actions were reasonable, you must acquit him." He says that if an intention to kill cannot be proved, a murder charge is impossible. Following a short break, prosecutor Gerrie Nel is given a chance to address a small number of legal issues. He maintains that Pistorius's two defences are "so mutually exclusive that they are mutually destructive". Judge Masipa thanks both teams and announces that she will give her verdict on 11 September.

1.30pm: Roux tackles the state's so-called "baker's dozen" of "significant incongruities" in Pistorius's case. One by one, Roux dismisses them as incorrect or inadmissible. For example, the prosecution accused Pistorius of having a poor memory. "He has severe depression. You cannot criticise him for that," says Roux. The defence lawyer peers over his glasses at the judge. "If that is a baker's dozen, then I don't want to eat those cookies," he says. Pistorius told the first people on the scene that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder and his bail affidavit was written just days after the shooting. Why would he be so desperate to save her if he thought she would turn around and accuse him of deliberately shooting her, asks Roux. It is consistent with a "huge, unfortunate mistake", he says.

1.00pm: Roux casts doubt on the independence of two state witnesses, Michelle Burger and her husband Charl Johnson. Their statements were so similar that you need a magnifying glass to tell the difference, says Roux.

The defence lawyer also refers to evidence that suggests Pistorius and Steenkamp were happy together. He points to the loving WhatsApp messages in the week leading up to Steenkamp's death and the Valentine's Day card she had bought for Pistorius, in which she wrote: "Today is a good day to tell you that I love you." Roux also quotes from Professor Jonathan Scholtz's report, written after Pistorius's 30-day mental health evaluation, which found that the couple had a normal, loving relationship, with no evidence of violence or aggression. Roux says there was no motive for Pistorius to deliberately kill his girlfriend.

Noon: Steenkamp's mother June leaves the courtroom as Roux turns to the post-mortem. Pathologist Professor Gert Saayman told the court that the food found in Steenkamp's stomach suggested she had eaten around two hours before her death, which contradicts Pistorius's claim that they were both asleep at that time. But Roux says it is important to remember that Saayman said this was only a "probable" timeframe and could vary by an hour or two in either direction. Roux says there was a period of inactivity on Pistorius's iPad between 7.00pm and 8.00pm when he said they were having dinner. Would an athlete and a model really wait until 1.00am or wake up in the night to eat dinner as the state suggests, says Roux. He admits that Steenkamp might have gone downstairs for a snack unbeknown to the accused, but says it is a "probability, not beyond reasonable doubt" that she ate after 11.00pm.

11.30am: Roux turns to the issue of whether neighbours heard a man or a woman screaming on the night of the shooting. Several witnesses said they heard a woman, but the closest neighbours Michael and Eontle Nhlengethwa said the same screams came from a man. Roux restates the defence's case that the first noises heard by neighbours were gunshots, followed by the cricket bat hitting the door. Therefore, it could not have been Steenkamp screaming after the gunshots, says Roux, because she had been fatally wounded. He also recalls the evidence by acoustic expert Ivan Lin who said it was "unlikely" that a scream from Pistorius's toilet could be heard "audibly and intelligibly" from 170m away. This casts doubt on the testimony of one neighbour, Michelle Burger, who insisted that she heard a woman screaming for help. Lin suggested it would not be possible for her to have heard Steenkamp, who was in the toilet cubicle, or distinguish between a male and female from that far away.

10.50am: Roux is picking apart the testimony given by state witness Dr Johan Stipp, one of Pistorius's neighbours and one of the first people on the scene to administer first aid. His evidence regarding the chronology of events contradicts the other witnesses and objective facts, including phone records, says Roux. For example, Dr Stipp claimed he called security at 3.27am, but Roux says he was already at Pistorius's house at this time. "You cannot rely on him. You have to put a big question mark on his evidence," Roux tells the court.

10.10am: Roux begins giving a detailed timeline of what happened on the night of the shooting. He says the first shots were heard at around 3.12am. There was screaming between the first and second shots. Neighbours heard a cry of "help, help, help" around two minutes later and then at 3.17 there was a second set of noises, which Roux says was the sound of Pistorius using a cricket bat to bash down the toilet door. Security went past Pistorius's house at 2.20am and heard no arguing. Roux said this was "fatal for the state", which claims the couple were awake and arguing hours before Steenkamp was shot.

10.00am: Roux addresses Pistorius's other charges: two counts of discharging firearms in public and one count of illegal possession of ammunition. He concedes the court should find Pistorius guilty of negligently discharging a firearm in the Johannesburg restaurant Tashas. Pistorius also allegedly fired a gun through a car sunroof, while with his then girlfriend Samantha Taylor and friend Darren Fresco on 30 November 2012. Roux suggests that both witnesses are unreliable, with Taylor mistakenly believing that Pistorius had cheated on her and Fresco seeking indemnity because he was alleged to be an accomplice. The witnesses failed to agree on the time, place and motivation for the incident, he says. On the final charge, Roux says Pistorius was simply looking after his father's ammunition and did not even have a gun that could use the bullets. The defence lawyer adds that any convictions on these counts cannot be used to influence the verdict for Steenkamp's killing.

9.20am: Roux finally elaborates on Pistorius's legal defence. He denies that putative self-defence and involuntary action are mutually exclusive. The defence team is not denying that Pistorius armed himself, went towards the toilet and foresaw that it might be necessary to fire the shot, says Roux. The pull of the trigger, however, was "reflexive" – a reaction to a noise in the toilet, which Pistorius perceived to be an intruder coming out to attack him. Pistorius has an exaggerated fight response because of the "slow-burning" effect of his disability and his daily experience of not being able to run away from danger without his prosthetic legs, says Roux. If the judge believes Pistorius's reaction was purely reflexive, then the defence is involuntary action. If she believes that some form of thought process caused him to fire the shot, then it is putative self-defence, says Roux.

9.00am: Roux tells the court that there was "no respect" for the crime scene by investigators. He presents a photograph of one police officer touching a plug by the athlete's bed. The same officer told the court he had not touched anything in the room, says Roux. Pistorius faced intense questioning about the position of the plugs and two fans in his bedroom during cross-examination. The prosecution claimed as fact that an extension cord could not reach to where Pistorius claimed he had placed the fan, suggesting his version was a "lie". But Roux presents another photograph, possessed by the state but not shown in court, showing that the extension cord was longer than claimed. Roux says the cross-examination was therefore "extremely unfair".

Oscar Pistorius described as 'deceitful witness' 7 August

The final stages of the Oscar Pistorius trial are taking place today, with both the prosecution and defence teams giving their closing arguments in court. Judge Thokozile Masipa is then expected to adjourn the case for up to a month before delivering her final verdict. Pistorius faces up to 25 years in prison if he is found guilty of deliberately murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Here is what we have heard so far today:

2.30pm: Defence lawyer Barry Roux begins his closing speech with a series of corrections to the prosecution's case. The defence is not claiming that the police "conspired" to tamper with the crime scene, says Roux, but it does have evidence to suggest that officers had touched or moved some objects. The prosecution cannot therefore accuse the defendant of lying based on the disturbance of the crime scene by police, he says. Roux also believes that the state should have called other investigating officers, such as Hilton Botha, as witnesses. Botha lied to incriminate the accused and was at the scene, says Roux, but he was not called to testify.

The defence lawyer makes several other technical corrections, but one of his main arguments is that the state has offered contradictory accounts of what happened on the night of the shooting. Prosecutors say Steenkamp and Pistorius might have been eating and arguing downstairs, but this contradicts their earlier claim that Steenkamp had left her jeans and the duvet on the bedroom floor and rushed to the bathroom as the couple fought in the bedroom. The state claims Steenkamp did not know she was about to be shot and was talking to Pistorius through the locked toilet door, but Roux says this does not fit with the claims of state witnesses who heard "blood-curdling screams".

Timelines of the shooting look set to take centre stage tomorrow, with Roux accusing the prosecution of "avoiding objective material facts".

2.00pm: Prosecutor Gerrie Nel tells the court why Pistorius should not escape a murder conviction. Even if the athlete believed Steenkamp was an intruder, he fired four shots into a small cubicle with the intention to kill a human being, says Nel. "Error in objective does not exclude intention." The prosecutor says there was "no reasonable event" that would have caused Pistorius to believe that an attack was imminent. It might have been different if the door had opened, but it did not, says Nel. Pistorius holds his head in his hands as Nel argues that the grouping of the shots suggests "pre-planning". He lists again the process Pistorius went through before shooting – finding his gun, un-holstering the firearm, walking five metres, disengaging the safety mechanism and maintaining a good grouping while firing. Disabled or not, Pistorius was armed and pointing his weapon to a door, behind which was an "unarmed, vulnerable woman", says Nel.

1.30pm: The WhatsApp messages between Steenkamp and Pistorius are discussed in court once again. Nel acknowledges that 90 per cent of the messages are loving but he says it is the other "ten per cent that count". He reads out a passage from Steenkamp in which she tells Pistorius "I am scared of you sometimes" and he says it is significant that unhappy messages were sent just weeks before the shooting. Judge Masipa makes one of her few interruptions of the day, asking Nel if the court can really rely on the WhatsApp messages. "Aren't relationships dynamic?" she says. "If you're unhappy today, it doesn't mean you won't be happy the next day." Nel insists that the messages show the couple were not without their problems and notes that "this relationship ended in death". He adds that the defence's version is that they were a loving couple "who spent a quiet evening together on the eve of Valentine's Day without even a suggestion of intimacy".

1.00pm: Nel turns to Pistorius's claim that he had fired the four shots in quick succession. The fact that he can recall this suggests he fired them consciously, says Nel. The prosecutor continues to argue that the state witnesses are credible. He notes that not every error made by the witnesses affects their credibility. For example, one witness thought he had heard more than four shots but the fact that he stuck to what he believed he heard shows he had not tailored his evidence to fit anyone else's account. Evidence from Steenkamp's post-mortem suggests that she might have eaten around two hours before she died. Nel says it cannot be a "mere coincidence" that a neighbour heard arguing at around the same time Steenkamp might have eaten.

Noon: Nel cites previous cases in which defendants have tried to use the "involuntary action" defence. He says it is not possible to consciously arm yourself, remove the gun's safety catch, take position and aim the weapon and then argue that you are momentarily not in control of your senses when you pull the trigger. Nel also denies claims that the state witnesses were not credible. He says that the neighbours who heard screams coming from Pistorius's house were independent and had not met the accused or deceased, yet their level of corroboration was "exceptional".

11.30am: Nel questions the probability of Pistorius's version of events. To even consider his defence, the court would have to accept that he and Steenkamp were both awake and had a conversation but then Steenkamp did not say another word as she went off to the bathroom, even when Pistorius was outside the toilet door shouting her name, says Nel. The prosecutor also questioned why Steenkamp would open a window in the bathroom before she went into the toilet cubicle and why she took her phone with her. Pistorius claimed he heard a magazine rack in the toilet being moved, which he perceived at the time to be the intruder coming out of the toilet. Nel says it is "improbable" that the magazine rack even moved.

11.00am: As the court resumes after a tea break, Judge Masipa tells the prosecution it is moving too slowly and that she is not available next week if they overrun. Nel assures her that he and the defence will get through the arguments before the end of tomorrow "by hook or by crook". Nel continues with his closing speech, telling the court that Pistorius told a "snowball of lies" that he was then forced to keep building on. He picks apart Pistorius's testimony in a bid to show that it cannot be "reasonably, possibly true". For example, the athlete claimed he had covered a blue LED light on his amplifier on the night of the shooting because it was bothering him, but also insisted it was too weak to illuminate anything in the room. Nel says this was an example of Pistorius "tailoring" his evidence to explain why he had his back to the bed at all times and did not, therefore, see that Steenkamp had left the bedroom.

10.00am: Nel says Pistorius was an "appalling witness", who was vague and argumentative, with his "mendacity" best shown in the way he remembered some events in huge detail and others with none at all. Nel says the most "devastating" aspect of the defence's case was its "inability and failure" to contest the condition of the crime scene. A photograph of the athlete's bedroom just after Steenkamp's death shows that a large fan is in the way of a balcony door that Pistorius claims he ran through to seek help. It also shows the duvet on the floor, which would have made it impossible for Pistorius to have mistakenly believed Steenkamp was in bed when he went to the bathroom with his gun. Yet, Nel says that the defence did not put it to the first police officer on the scene or the police photographer that they had moved the objects around.

9.30am: Prosecutor Gerrie Nel reads out quotes from Pistorius's testimony in which the athlete describes the exact moments he fired his gun. Pistorius told the court that he shot Reeva by "accident" and had no time to think before he fired. This suggests a defence of "involuntary action". But Nel says that on the night of the shooting, Pistorius did not tell any witnesses who came to his house that the shooting had been an accident. The Paralympian told them he shot Reeva and that he thought she was an intruder. Nel also picks out quotes from Pistorius in which the athlete explains his thought process just before he fired. Pistorius said he heard "movement" inside the toilet and that he "thought" an intruder might have broken in. The prosecutor suggests that Pistorius could not, therefore, have shot without thinking and that his own testimony points more towards putative self-defence.

9am: Nel begins his closing speech, describing Pistorius as a "deceitful witness" and saying that in essence his evidence was "absolutely devoid of any truth". He says the athlete's two defences – that he was not in control of his behaviour and that he acted in self-defence – are irreconcilable and the objective facts about the night of the shooting are "devastating" to his case. Nel accuses Pistorius of having "anxiety on call". He adds that the defence had told the court that it would call witnesses to prove that Pistorius screams "like a woman". But no such witnesses were called, he said.

What else can we expect as Nel and defence lawyer Barry Roux go head to head once more?

Prosecution: Gerrie Nel's closing arguments Nicknamed 'The Pit Bull',

Nel has subjected Pistorius and the defence witnesses to a series of gruelling cross-examinations. He is likely to use his closing argument to paint Pistorius as a gun-loving, egotistical, jealous boyfriend who would blame anyone but himself for his mistakes.

Nel will summarise the prosecution's case that Pistorius had a heated argument with Steenkamp before deliberately shooting her after she locked herself in the toilet. This contrasts with the athlete's claim that he mistook his girlfriend for a dangerous intruder. The prosecutor has previously told Pistorius that his version is "not only untruthful but it's so improbable that it cannot be reasonably, possibly true". The court can expect to be reminded of any inconsistencies in the defence's case, particularly in the athlete's own teary testimony.

To back up his case, Nel is likely to draw on the testimonies of state witnesses, including five neighbours who heard a woman screaming on the night Steenkamp was shot, a ballistics expert who claims she would have had time to scream before she died and a handful of WhatsApp messages that suggested she was "scared" of Pistorius.

Defence: Barry Roux's closing arguments

In contrast with Nel's case, Roux has sought to show Pistorius's life as marked by tragedy and a "profound fear of crime", from his mother's death and his double leg amputation to being followed home, burgled and shot at on a motorway.

Roux too will try to pick holes in the opposition's case. The seasoned courtroom performer has been compared to OJ Simpson's lawyer Johnnie Cochran, who famously secured the footballer a not guilty verdict. In the same way that Cochran challenged every piece of police department evidence to set his client free, Roux too has highlighted the police's shoddy handling of the case. One officer picked up Pistorius's weapon without gloves, another walked over the door Steenkamp was shot through and one of the athlete's watches went missing from the crime scene.

Over the course of the trial, Roux has often been seen leafing through his notes and casually sucking on his glasses as if uncertain of what to ask next – before going straight for the witness's jugular. Investigating officer Hilton Botha was left a sweating mess after a bail hearing and resigned shortly afterwards. Roux has worked hard to prove there is room for doubt in the testimonies of the state's witnesses – and it is "reasonable doubt" that Judge Masipa needs in order to deliver a not guilty verdict for premeditated murder.

Oscar Pistorius: what is his defence and can it succeed? 5 August

Both sides in the Oscar Pistorius trial agree that he shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp four times though a toilet door. She was killed with expanding bullets, designed to cause maximum tissue damage, which hit her in the head, hip and elbow on Valentine's Day last year. So how can Pistorius avoid jail?

His defence appears to have changed over the course of the trial. Defence lawyers told reporters yesterday that they had filed their closing arguments to the High Court in Pretoria and "are ready" for the final showdown with the prosecution later this week. The state claims Pistorius knew Steenkamp was behind the toilet door and shot her with the intention to kill following an argument. The athlete says he mistook her for a dangerous intruder. But under South African law, firing with intent to kill can be ruled as murder even if the defendant was mistaken about his target. Here are the defence options aired so far...

Putative self-defence

At the start of the trial, it appeared Pistorius would argue "putative self-defence". He cannot use the basic self-defence principle because there was no actual threat to his life. Putative self-defence means the accused genuinely believed their life was under threat and used "reasonable means" to protect themselves. Defence lawyer Barry Roux has sought to show that Pistorius was vulnerable due to his disability and had previously fallen victim to violent crime. Pistorius told the court he was "extremely fearful, overcome with a sense of terror and vulnerability" in the moments before he fired the gun. But one piece of evidence that might damage this defence is Pistorius's written gun competency test, taken in 2012 so he could obtain a licence. The athlete explains, in his own handwriting, when a gun owner is allowed to use lethal force against an intruder. "Attack must be against you. Must be unlawful. Must be against person," he wrote. "Know your target, and what lies beyond."

Involuntary action As Pistorius later gave evidence in court, his defence appeared to change from "putative self-defence" to "involuntary action", where the accused's mind does not control his behaviour. Pistorius told the court he was so terrified that he unconsciously pulled the trigger. "I didn't have time to think, I discharged my firearm," he said. For putative self-defence to apply, Pistorius would have to have intended to shoot the intruder, but in his evidence he said he did not. "I didn't intend to fire but I fired. I pulled the trigger. My firearm was pointing to where I perceived the danger to be," he said. While this suggests Roux might argue involuntary action, legal experts say this defence is normally saved for cases such as sleep-walking or epileptic seizures. South African law also recognises "temporary non-pathological incapacity", akin to temporary insanity, where a killer is so overwhelmed with emotion that they briefly lose control. Roux might argue that Pistorius was so overwhelmed with terror that he involuntarily fired his gun.

Pathological incapacity When defence witness Dr Merryll Vorster told the court that Pistorius suffered from Generalised Anxiety Disorder, prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested the athlete's legal team was pursuing a "third defence". Roux insisted he only wanted the information to be "taken into account" by the court, but Pistorius was sent for a 30-day psychiatric evaluation so the judge could be certain about his mental state. Any chance of Pistorius using pathological incapacity as a defence appeared to evaporate when the results came in. "Mr Pistorus did not suffer from a mental illness or defect that would have rendered him criminally not responsible for the offence charged," said the report.

Oscar Pistorius trial: Judge to deliver murder verdict on 11 September

For a trial that long before it even started has seemed to be more about television drama than justice for a dead young woman, it will come as little surprise that its final act is likely to be billed as 9/11 Judgement Day.

It will be on September 11th, almost six and a half months after the trial began and nineteen months after Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, that he will finally learn his fate.

The trial proper ended yesterday, with the athlete’s now world famous defence counsel Barry Roux claiming his client should never have been tried for murder,but for culpable homicide, and that the undisputed facts of the case support only Oscar Pistorius’s version of events and no one else’s - that he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder, and in startled panic, fearing for his life, shot and killed her through the bathroom door.

The athlete’s uncle Arnold said afterwardsthat his defence team had “done more than enough” and that “I want him back inthe Olympics.”

Mr Pistorius, he argued, was neither liable nor negligent for the killing, which came as a consequence of an “involuntary reflexive response”, as he stood with his gun pointed at the locked toilet cubicle, and heard a noise inside.“He is trained as an athlete, to react to a sound,” Mr Roux said. “And he’s standing there, with his finger on the trigger.“If I were to stand behind him [in such a situation], his finger on the trigger, and heis in a fearful state, and I clap my hands, Iam very happy to argue that on some occasion, he may pull the trigger.”

The prosecution have sought to tear apartthe athlete’s version of events, claiming that he could have attempted to arouse Ms Steenkamp, who he wrongly imaginedto be in the bed, and exited the house to safety.But in arming himself and moving in to the bathroom, there was pre-planning involved, and by shooting in to the toilet, he knew he would kill whoever was in there, an act of murder, whether he knewit to be Reeva or not, which Pistorius doesnot accept.

Citing earlier expect testimony, Mr Roux argued: “Because Oscar Pistorius grew upwithout legs, his fight or flight danger was skewed. It led to an exaggerated fight response.

“You are a little boy without legs, you experience daily, the disability and the effect of this. You experience, daily, that you cannot run away.“You do not have a flight response.

“We all know we have three primal responses, freeze, flight or fight. It is well known that with a disability, over time, you get an exaggerated fight response.

”The times of phone calls made by Pistorius and his neighbours validates his version of events, and his alone. It is Mr Pistorius’s version of events the shots that killed Ms Steenkamp were fired at 3.12am, and the noises the state claim were the fateful gunshots were in fact thesound of the athlete seeking to break down the toilet door with a cricket bat.

The state has offered no explanation for what those earlier sounds were, and according to its version of events, Mr Pistorius would have had to screamed forhelp, before he had shot Ms Steenkamp.

“Why would he shout Help! Help! Help! while Ms Steenkamp still alive?” Mr Roux asked.

The case, he said, would come down to that short time, a minute or thirty seconds, when he stood outside the bathroom door.

There was a case to make, he suggested, that Mr Pistorius could have been negligent in not trying harder to establish Ms Steenkamp’s whereabouts, but in that case “the chargeshould be culpable homicide, not murder.”

“You have all the facts you have to determine. We have made our submissions. He was not negligent,” he said.

“It comes down to those 20 seconds in the accused’s life where he was standing at the entrance to the bathroom.”

What happened in those twenty seconds, Judge Thokozile Masipa has just over a month to decide.

The Reality Check

Huge day as Judge Masipa grants the State's application to have OP referred for independent mental evaluation!

She goes through both arguments and says she's pursuaded that not referring him for evaluation could be grounds for appeal. She describes as 'strange' the defence opposition to this application given they've raised the psychiatric issue. The judge emphasises that referral is to ensure OP gets a fair trial.

Recall that two days ago OP was reported as saying to BBC journalist, Andrew Harding, the State application for his referral 'is a joke'. He looks stunned and definitely not laughing now. It seems defence shenanigans went just a step too far and they've tripped themselves up in the process. So why does defence not want the referral? It's being done by an independent panel of doctors in a process they do not control. They may come back saying there's nothing wrong with OP, thereby destroying his putative self defence theory. Worse still they may find other conditions such as the narcissistic personality State has alluded to.

Tune in on Tuesday next week when Judge Masipa makes the order which will cover administrative issues as well. Nel and Roux indicate they'll be meeting to draft the order and there's suggestion OP may be an outpatient. Roux also requests that one of panellists be a psychologist.

And so we're due a long break during which the mental evaluation will take place. Whatever the outcome, this is a good decision for justice – it provides much needed independent insight without theatrics and a sharp reminder that the court is not as easy to manipulate as it may sometimes seem.

The Panicking

We resume with continuing cross examination of Doctor Vorster by Nel who gets her to confirm that while her diagnosis of Generalised Anxiety Disorder is not a 'mental illness' it's relevant consideration for Oscar's ability to act in accordance with his understanding of right or wrong. Roux is in panick mode and tries to re-direct the doctor away from any hint that there might be any need to refer OP for mental examination.

Nel formally applies to the court for OP to be referred for mental evaluation. Note that this would mean spending 30 days in a mental health facility. Nel cites case law where the Supreme Court has intervened on appeal and argued an accused should have been referred for mental evaluation. He questions why Dr Vorster was only asked to evaluate OP in May and argues that defence is trying to sneak in a fall-back position in case of conviction. The timing does indeed seem like an attempt by the defence to sneak in grounds for appeal further down the line.

Roux, sounding quite shrill and emotional, argues that court cannot refer OP because defence are not raising mental incapacity as defence. He contemptuously suggests Nel is reading the case law incorrectly and doesn't know what he's talking about. Nel counters this by pointing out that one of the cases cited, that Roux has said he knows nothing about, was in fact his case. He urges the court to err on the side of caution or risk an appeal.

Judge Masipa orders adjournment and says she'll have her ruling tomorrow at 9.30am.

This is a defence that's shown an inclination to do whatever it takes to get their client off. It will be a very brave judge indeed that proceeds purely on the defence's word that they will not later claim diminished responsibility in order to trigger an appeal.

Has the defence been too clever and in the process backed itself into a corner? Judge Masipa's ruling will tell!

The Gate Of Hell

We're off to a slow start with more of Wolmarans' selective amnesia. The defence has some explaining to do on why all expert reports and tests have only happened during the past month. There's a stench of dishonesty and tailoring.

After the briefest re-direct from Roux defence calls up psychiatrist Dr Meryl Voster who testifies that OP has a sense of heightened vulnerability due to his disability. She diagnoses him with Generalised Anxiety Disorder which makes him want to control his envrionment in order to feel safe. We learn OP has become depressed since killing Reeva and Dr Vorster describes a remorseful man. Roux hands over to Nel for cross examination.

Nel questions why this evidence is coming at this stage and exactly what the psychiatrist wants the court to draw from it? Dr Vorster states it can be used for consideration in conviction and sentencing but that it does not imply OP didn't know right from wrong. So clearly the defence is already playing with mitigation in mind. Are they expecting a conviction?

Then the gates of hell open and Nel plays a master stroke!

He makes it clear he intends to apply for the court to refer OP for mental health evaluation under the Criminal Procedures Act. Roux vehemently opposes this and there is back and forth argument on each side's merit. In trying to use OPs disability in his favour, the defence has inadvertently opened a door to independent mental evaluation and Nel is walking right through it.

So here's why Nel's move is such a master stroke; irrespective of the judge's decision the State still wins. One one hand it's clear Nel believes this is a bogus diagnosis and is calling OPs bluff. If the judge agrees for him to be referred he spends 30 days in a state facility and State gets an independent opinion on his state of mind pre-14 February 2013. Remember the State has been working with its own profilers who specialise in profiling murderers and rapists and must be pretty confident the outcome of any psychological evaluation will work in its favour. Even if the judge rules against referral, the defence will be forced to remove OPs anxiety disorder as a possible defence for his actions and in the process also weakens his putative self defence argument.

Nel provisionally completes cross examination so he can bring court application for OPs referral. Roux argues defence should be allowed to re-direct before application. More back and forth argument and Nel asks for adjournment to prepare for further cross examination and his application.

The UnderWhelming

Roux continues leading Wolmarans' evidence before handing over to Nel for cross examination. 

Nel asks for adjournment so State can set up replica of OP's toilet complete with bullet riddled door.

Mangena's laser gadgets are set up and Nel invites judge and assessors to walk down and inspect it. Let the cross examination begin! 

For all the hype around Wolmarans, we're completely underwhelmed by his performance.

He seems to have frequent 'memory lapses', claims to have no files of reports and comes across as dodgy and evasive. This is embarrassing! 

We learn that his evidence has been disallowed in another case and at one point he gets so worked up we think he's going to come down and punch Nel. 

As expected Nel goes for the jugular and shows the evidence as being suspect and tailored. Roux looks like he'd like to hide under a chair. Even judge Masipa's not looking too impressed with the frequent 'memory lapses'. 

Several times Wolmarans contradicts Dixon's evidence and declares he'd never take Dixon's advice as Dixon not a ballistic expert. Nel pounces and asks why then the court should accept Dixon's advice if he thinks so little of it?

The rest of the day was spent with Wolmarans ducking and diving but Nel's clearly not going to let him off easily.

Dr Mujajati:The Cost Of Prevention Is Nothing Compared To The Cost Of Treating Ebola,West Africa Is not too far

The Zambia Medical Association (ZMA) has appealed to Government and neighbouring countries to institute surveillance measures at ports of entry to prevent the spread of Ebola.  Ebola virus disease (EVD) or Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) is the human disease caused by the Ebola virus. Symptoms typically start two days to three weeks after contracting the virus, with a fever, sore throat, muscle pains, and headaches. ZMA president Aaron Mujajati said it is better to be over-prepared than under prepared when faced with a threat that has no tangible solutions if it occurs. Dr Mujajati said in statement issued in Lusaka on Monday that Ebola is not curable and only a handful of countries can claim to be adequately equipped to treat the disease once it breaks out but that measures can be taken to prevent the spread of the disease. “Ebola has been ravaging West Africa for some weeks now and several people have died including health workers. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families that have lost loved ones. We stand with our colleagues that have continued to risk their lives in service to mankind,” Dr Mujajati said. He said the world cannot shy away from the possibility of the disease spreading to other parts of Africa and the world at large. Dr Mujajati said the cost of prevention is nothing compared to the cost of treating Ebola. “West Africa is not too far to console this concern,” Dr Mujajati said. He said this is a matter that requires stakeholders to combine and to find the best way to address this issue without causing unnecessary disquiet. “With the high mobility of this modern world it is only prudent that as a nation we start to prepare ourselves,” he said. Dr Mujajati commended the department of immigration for the splendid job they are doing. He, however, expressed concern about media reports attributed to prison authorities suggesting that prisons house a huge number of prohibited immigrants. “We wonder if any of them were screened for communicable diseases such as the ones that continue to ravage the continent. How many of them are from West Africa? Have all of them been screened? We need to exhibit the same level of medical care for citizens behind bars as we do those outside,” he said. Dr Mujajati said if screening was not done, immigration authorities should at the very least expedite deportation procedures or collaborate with ministries in charge of health to immediately start screening the prohibited immigrants. “One can only imagine the magnitude of the loss of human life if anyone of these diseases were to break out in confinement,” Dr Mujajati said. He said others might argue that West Africa is too far for the country to worry but they should not forget that cases of Ebola were reported in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo not so long ago. Dr Mujajati said the country cannot afford to take chances when it has been faced with a real health threat that can wipe out the population.