SOCIALITE NELISA FOUND GUILTY OF PRINCIPAL CROWN COUNSEL’S MURDER

MBABANE – Socialite Nelisa Sibusiso Hlatshwako has been found guilty of killing Principal Crown Counsel Stanley Dlamini.   

Hlatshwako was convicted by Judge Maxine Langwenya yesterday who, after hearing the closing submissions, found that the Crown proved that Hlatshwako committed the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt. In her judgment, Judge Langwenya said it was her considered view that the force that was used by Hlatshwako was not commensurate with the danger apprehended. “There was no reason to use such force against a drunk and unarmed deceased person, especially because the accused had an upper hand and was winning the fight. When the accused hit the deceased with the stone and stomped on him, the deceased was lying on the ground and posed no threat to the deceased at the time. For this reason, the private defence does not avail the accused,’’ said Judge Langwenya.

confronted

The court said the evidence that was before it was that the deceased spat on Hlatshwako when he confronted him and told him not to discuss work-related matters at drinking spots. “The deceased was addressing Menzi Gama. Menzi Gama’s statement reflects that he was not manhandled by the deceased on the night in question and that he never sought the accused’s intervention on that fateful night. The accused meddled in the matter. He was a busy-body when the deceased spat on him,” said the court. During the trial, it was argued that the accused was provoked by the deceased who spat on him. It was stated that according to provisions of the Homicide Act of 1959, provocation had the effect of reducing the crime of murder to that of culpable homicide.

The court said it agreed that this was the position of the law, but the question that needed to be answered was whether defence of provocation availed the accused in this matter. “In my assessment of the evidence, it is clear that even though the accused meddled in deceased’s matter with Menzi Gama, the deceased provoked the accused when he spat on him. The first enquiry is whether the accused was entitled to use a severe form of violence against the deceased in the circumstances. I think not. It is not every provocation that entitles an accused person to use a severe form of violence against his provocateur,” said the judge. Judge Langwenya stated that the next enquiry was whether there was a time for Hlatshwako’s temper to cool after the ‘spit’ incident and when he stoned and stomped on the principal crown counsel when he smashed a brick onto his head and face.

evidence

“The evidence before court shows that the stoning, stomping, kicking and smashing of the deceased with a brick was not instant after deceased spat on the accused. The accused had time for his passion to cool when Stanley left the scene and walked towards the braai area,” reads part of the judgment.  It was further the court’s finding that, there was evidence that after he was spat on, the accused went to Menzi and asked him what he should do; at the time, Stanley had left the place and walked towards the braai area.   The court noted that after talking to Menzi; the accused was heard saying he was going to assault the deceased.

Hlatshwako is said to have indeed gone and caught up with the deceased, beat him with his jacket and later used the deadly force from a brick, stone, kicked and stomped on him. “Even though the accused was provoked, I find that the provocation did not deprive him of the power of self-control. This I say because after the provocation, the accused acted in a rational, cohesive and calculated manner when he decided he was going to assault the deceased. Consequently, the provocation in this case, I find, did not have the effect of dislodging intention from the crime of murder and then reducing it to the crime of culpable homicide. For these reasons, the defence of provocation does not avail the accused,” said the court. The court observed that Hlatshwako stated that he stoned the deceased because he feared for his life and proceeded to plead private defence.   

“Even though the deceased provoked the accused by spitting on his face, I, however, cannot say that, from the evidence presented in court, the accused was entitled to stone and stomp on the deceased in the manner he did or that he was justified to kill the deceased in the manner he did,” reads part of the judgment. The judge said it was her considered view that the force that was used by the accused was not commensurate with the danger apprehended. “Consequently, and for the foregoing reasons the accused is found guilty of murder with indirect intention and I convict him of same,” said the judge.  

convince

The next stage now, is for Hlatshwako to convince the court why it should be lenient when sentencing him. Hlatshwako’s bail was recently terminated by Judge Langwenya after Principal Crown Counsel Macebo Nxumalo moved an application in terms of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act No. 67 of 1938. The above section provides that: “If the accused is indicted in the High Court after having been admitted to bail, his plea to the indictment shall, unless the court otherwise directs, have the effect of terminating his bail and he shall thereupon be detained in custody until the conclusion of the trial in the same manner in every respect as if he had not been admitted to bail.” In motivating the application to revoke the bail, the prosecution informed the court that the accused was now a flight risk due to the fact that the evidence presented by the Crown was overwhelming against him and that the defence he presented before court was so poor such that he had lost hope of being acquitted. The Crown is represented by Principal Crown Counsel Nxumalo while for Hlatshwako was Noncedo Ndlangamandla.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: