‘Job-loss fear not a reason for lighter murder sentence’

File picture: Timothy A. Clary

File picture: Timothy A. Clary

Published Aug 10, 2016

Share

Durban - Killing a work colleague because you fear losing your job does not mean that you are entitled to a lighter sentence than life in prison.

This was the upshot of a recent ruling by three KwaZulu-Natal judges who dismissed an appeal brought by two convicted killers against the life sentences they had been given for murder.

Relying on case law, the men’s lawyer had suggested that, where the “main source of discontent” related to employment issues, a sentence of life imprisonment was not the only proper sentence.

The appeal court was dealing with the case of Buhlebuyeza Majola and Sibusiso Majola, who were convicted of murder and unlawful possession of ammunition and a firearm in April 2013.

The two were convicted of the murder of Zenzele Nxumalo in August 2011.

Nxumalo, who was killed as he sat waiting for his family in the driveway of his home, had been a human resources practitioner at Bell Equipment in Richards Bay.

Buhlebuyeza Majola had also worked at the same company.

The State’s evidence during the trial was that before the murder Nxumalo had informed Majola about a coming disciplinary inquiry related to his absence from work without leave.

According to the State, instead of attending the hearing, Majola instead hatched a plan to kill Nxumalo and enlisted the help of Sibusiso Majola to achieve this end.

Neither man disclosed a motive for the murder during the trial.

In the appeal, it was argued that a mitigating factor that ought to have been taken into account during sentencing was that Majola had feared he was going to lose his job.

But appeal Judge Thoba Poyo Dlwati, who penned the judgment, said that neither of the men had explained the reasons for the murder, even at the sentencing stage.

“If they had admitted their killing, then one would examine their actions leading up to the killing. It cannot be argued that one needs to look into their fear and establish whether it was real in the circumstances,” she said.

The trial court had correctly found that the murder had been “senseless”.

The case was not similar to one the defence had relied on in its arguments for a lesser sentence.

In that case, the murder had occurred after a dispute over wages.

She added that Nxumalo had not been the cause of the disciplinary hearing that Majola had to face, and convening hearings had merely been part of his job.

“He was killed only for performing his duties. That, in my view, is an aggravating factor.

“For that matter, even if one has to accept that the first appellant’s (Majola’s) fear of losing his employment was real, how could it have been so if he had not attended the hearing first?”

The judges said there was no reason to interfere with the sentence of the trial court.

“Any mitigating factors that are present are outweighed by the gravity of the offence, its prevalence and the interests of society," the judge said.

The Mercury

Related Topics: