SOLDIER SAYS HE’S LATE VUSI MASUKU’S SON, WIFE WANTS DNA
MBABANE – The wife of the late Deputy National Commissioner of Police, Vusi Masuku, wants a soldier who claims to be her husband’s son to present himself for a DNA test.
The soldier, according to Masuku’s wife, has emerged to claim a share of the estate. The wife, Cebisile Masuku nee Dlamini, and four children of the late senior cop; Sandile Masuku, Mbutfo Masuku, Tiyandza Masuku and Sibomgumenzi Masuku, want the court to order Khulekani Masuku to present himself for a deoxyribonucleic acid test (DNA) within 10 days.
Cebsile informed the High Court that the purpose of the application was to seek an order to compel Khulekani to submit himself for a DNA test in order to verify and confirm his paternity or relationship with the late Vusi.
She brought it to the attention of the court that the paternity of the respondent (Khulekani) came into question mainly on account that, he had since surfaced to claim benefits from the estate of the late Vusi.
The applicant (Cebsile) narrated to the court that she was married to Vusi and their marriage subsisted until he met his death on May 30, 2022. She submitted that three children were born out of their marriage, namely; Mbutfo, Liyandza and Sibongumenzi, who had all attained majority.
Mother
According to Cebsile, on or about the year 2001, with Vusi, they met the respondent (Khulekani), who was about three years at that time. She said they enquired from her mother in- law about the respondent, who was at that time still a minor. “My mother-in-law, who is now deceased, informed us that a certain gentleman who worked with the deceased (Vusi) at the Royal Eswatini Police Service came and dropped the child at our homestead and he informed her that the child belonged to Vusi Masuku,” submitted the deponent (Cebsile).
She alleged that her mother-in-law then proceeded to enquire from Vusi about the child and he responded by stating that he was not the father of the child. Vusi, according to his wife, also told her mother that the mother of the child mentioned him (child) in passing to him. The applicant went on to tell the court that when Vusi probed the mother of the child further and requested a paternity test to be conducted, she (mother) disappeared and never returned. Cebsile averred that according to her late husband, he was not the father of the respondent and he thought his (respondent) mother had found his father.
“I humbly aver that I also probed the deceased about the child and he maintained that the child was not sired by him. I further suggested that a paternity test be conducted but the deceased stated that due to his position in the Royal Eswatini Police Service and the fact that he was a famous person, the test exercise would cause him unnecessary public scrutiny and tabloids scandals,” contended the deponent. She argued that the respondent was never raised by her now late husband or any member of the Masuku extended family. Cebsile told the court that as a child, the respondent would visit their homestead, while her mother-in-law was still alive.
“On all the occasions when he visited, he would come alone not accompanied by any of his relatives from the maternal side. In actual fact, the respondent was never introduced to the Masuku family, his mother never reported the pregnancy nor was he formally introduced to the family in accordance with customary law,” alleged Cebisile.
Relationship
She averred that even though the deceased denied being the father of the respondent, he sparingly supported him like all other orphaned children he would assist in the community. She alleged that to this extent, the respondent never stayed at the Masuku family and there was no formal relationship with him. “Upon attaining majority, the respondent was enlisted in the Eswatini Umbutfo Defence Force and he never had contact with the deceased Vusi Masuku nor did he forge any relations with the family,” submitted the wife. The matter is still pending in court and appearing for the applicants are lawyers from KN Simelane in Association with Henwood and Company.
Comments (0 posted):