A forensic expert has told the inquest into the death of Anele Tembe that a forceful push could explain why she landed about 5.1 metres from the Pepperclub Hot...
A forensic expert has told the inquest into the death of Anele Tembe that a forceful push could explain why she landed about 5.1 metres from the Pepperclub Hotel in Cape Town after falling from its 10th floor on April 11, 2021. However, the expert said the available evidence could not conclusively establish whether Tembe jumped or was pushed.
Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Philander, a forensic analyst, gave the testimony on Monday, October 19, 2026, as the inquest examined the scientific reconstruction of Tembe’s fall. His evidence focused on simulations conducted by investigators to determine how she could have travelled the distance between the hotel building and the point where her body was found. The findings were presented as part of the ongoing inquiry into the circumstances surrounding her death.
According to Philander’s testimony, investigators used a mannequin weighing approximately 53 kilograms to test four possible scenarios. These involved an accidental slip, an accidental jump, a slight push and a forceful push. The simulations were intended to compare the horizontal distances produced under different conditions and assess how closely they matched the position where Tembe landed.
The results showed that an accidental slip would have placed the mannequin about 1.9 metres from the building, while an accidental jump produced a distance of approximately 2.9 metres. A slight push resulted in a landing distance of about 4.4 metres. The forceful-push simulation produced a distance of approximately 5.1 metres, similar to the distance recorded in Tembe’s case.
The comparison formed a central part of the forensic evidence because the landing position was further from the building than the distance produced by the accidental-slip simulation. Philander explained the findings through the reconstruction work, which used mathematical calculations and mannequin testing to examine the possible movements involved in the fall. The results indicated that a simple accidental slip did not adequately explain the recorded landing distance under the tested conditions.
However, the evidence did not establish that Tembe was pushed. Philander acknowledged that a sufficiently forceful jump could also account for the distance. Both a jump and a push therefore remained possible explanations based on the reconstruction. The forensic analysis could not conclusively determine which scenario occurred, leaving the question of how Tembe fell unresolved.
The inquest also heard evidence about a footprint found on the outside edge of the hotel balcony railing. According to the testimony, the footprint was believed to belong to Tembe and suggested that she may have been facing towards the hotel room, with her back towards the street. The footprint provided another piece of physical evidence for investigators to consider, but it did not establish whether she jumped, slipped or was pushed from the balcony.
Investigators also examined the balcony railing for fingerprints belonging to Tembe and her boyfriend, rapper AKA. The forensic witness testified that no identifiable fingerprints belonging to either of them were found on the railing. The absence of identifiable prints was discussed alongside concerns that the scene may have been contaminated after several people entered the hotel room and accessed the balcony following the fall. This meant that the condition of the scene had to be considered when assessing the forensic findings.
Philander’s testimony also addressed calculations relating to the speed and duration of the fall. According to the forensic calculations presented to the inquest, Tembe’s fall lasted approximately 2.3 to 2.6 seconds, with an estimated minimum impact speed of 82 kilometres per hour. These figures formed part of the scientific reconstruction used to examine the circumstances of the fatal fall from the 10th floor of the Cape Town hotel.
The inquest further heard evidence concerning scratches or markings observed on AKA’s chest and back. The injuries were discussed during the proceedings, but the forensic testimony did not conclusively establish what had caused them. Their significance in relation to Tembe’s death therefore remained undetermined by the evidence described in the testimony. The discussion of the markings formed part of the wider examination of the available evidence rather than providing a definitive explanation of what happened before the fall.
The forensic evidence has brought further detail to the inquest, particularly through the comparison of the four simulated scenarios and their respective landing distances. The forceful-push simulation matched the approximately 5.1-metre distance recorded in Tembe’s case, while the accidental-slip simulation produced a substantially shorter distance. Nevertheless, the expert’s acknowledgement that a sufficiently forceful jump could also explain the landing position is an important qualification. The reconstruction identified possible explanations but did not establish which one was responsible for her death.
The proceedings remain ongoing, and no final finding has been made about the circumstances surrounding Tembe’s death. The evidence presented so far does not conclusively establish that another person pushed her, nor does it establish that she jumped. The inquest continues to examine the available forensic findings, physical evidence and testimony to assess the circumstances of the fall. Until a final finding is made, the competing explanations remain unresolved.
