swaziland times

MBABANｅ — “Prison is hard.”

Former Public Works and Transport Minister Ntuthuko Dlamini made this statement yesterday while speaking to some people who came to the court to give him moral support. Earlier, the Supreme Court reserved an appeal against Ntuthuko’s conviction for murdering three Luyengweni internal committee members who were meeting to discuss how to allocate land in the area to a resident. Although Ntuthuko told his relatives and supporters that jail time was difficult, the royal family wanted to sentence him to life imprisonment.

Francois Roets, a representative of the Public Prosecution Service, said the 20-year prison sentence Ntutuko received for the murder of three MPs was “not enough for killing three people with an illegal gun”. The deceased are Sikhulu Shongwe, Simon Dlamini and Themba Tsabedze. They were shot dead in Mhlabubovu on September 7, 2020. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard an appeal against Ntuthuko’s 20-year prison sentence for each of the three murders, with the High Court ordering that the 20-year sentences run concurrently with a five-year prison sentence or a 5,000 Egyptian pound fine for possession of an illegal firearm.

Serve

This means Ntuthuko will only have to serve 20 years for the triple murder. The sentence was handed down by Judge Maxine Langwenya. The DPP’s grounds of appeal were that the High Court erred in law in finding that Ntuthuko had eventual intent (dolus eventualis) rather than direct intent (dolus directus). Dolus eventualis means that the actor intentionally regards a certain outcome as possible and proceeds to implement that outcome. Roots argued that Ntuthuko came to the meeting place of the internal committee members, said “timfucuta” (boo) to those he found there and then shot them dead. He said that when he was analysing the High Court judgment, Ntuthuko called the Bhunya station chief and told him that if he did not come to the meeting place, bloodshed would occur.

“Bloodshed ensued. Dlamini (Simon) was shot in the arm and abdomen. His defence is a brazen lie. There is no plausible excuse for his actions,” the lawyer said.
He pointed out that the High Court found that the murder was premeditated murder. “We have no disagreement with the High Court’s judgment, but the application of the law does not amount to intent. The High Court applied the law incorrectly. “There is no explanation as to why the judge found his actions were deliberate. The High Court found that he gloated before he left. He shot and wounded Dlamini (Simon) as he lay on the rocks,” said Roots. He argued that from the preponderance of the evidence, it could not be said that Ntutuko’s actions were deliberate. He said this was a misapplication of the law by Judge Longwenya.

Judge Nkululeko Hlophe asked the defence counsel if he thought the sentence should be heavier, to which he agreed. Judge Hlofi went on to ask how the context in which the incident took place affected the sentence. “If the contamination was severe or the context was bad, does it matter? If it was intentional killing or direct intent, does it matter? Does the context affect the sentencing? Your conclusion is that killing occurred but the context was bad, does the context matter?” Judge Hlophe asked.

The lawyer said there were procedures for dealing with people who were unhappy, adding that circumstances would have an impact. Judge Hlophe further asked: “What do you think was wrong in reducing the sentence in this particular case, thus imposing a 20-year prison sentence? Would you treat it as a case where a person came and shot you dead? Roets said people would restrain themselves. He argued that Ntuthuko shot and killed three people who were just going about their business. “He called the police and said he wanted blood. He continued his evil ways and killed three people. This country still has the death penalty in appropriate cases,” Roz said.

He said Ntuthuko’s actions were not impulsive. The defence lawyer said Ntuthuko did not let the court know to say “I’m sorry”. “He lied deliberately. Throughout the trial, he kept saying he acted in self-defence. I do not deny that there was a land dispute in the country, which could have aroused people’s anger. Why did he gloat? He should have realised that he had killed three people and said he was sorry, but he gloated. This should be reflected in the verdict,” the lawyer said. Judge Hlofi asked: “Would the prosecution have taken the same view if the sentences had not been ordered to run concurrently?”

Roots said it would still be a mistake. He said it was a consequence crime. The judge further asked the lawyer if Ntuthuko’s three 20-year sentences were ordered to run consecutively (one after the other) would the prosecution appeal the verdict? “It’s because he is serving 20 years. If that is the application of the law, what do you think is wrong with it?” the judge asked the lawyer. Mr Rotz said if the sentence was harsher, such as 40 to 50 years, ‘but I can’t speak for the DPP who decides on the appeal’. He said he believed that despite the alleged mistakes made by the High Court, a sentence of 20 years could never be considered an appropriate sentence. “(If the sentence was harsher) we would never appeal because even the state would be happy with the sentence,” Mr Rotz said.

Ultimately, Judge Hlophe said it was justice done, clearly justice done. Defence lawyers said an appropriate sentence should be imposed. Judge Hlophe went on to ask the defence counsel how he would improve the situation. The defence counsel said that previous sentences provided guidance and that a 20-year sentence was not enough in this case. The court reserved judgment on the matter.