Pretoria - Is the Oscar Pistorius trial an example of no effort or expense being spared in an attempt to arrive at the truth? This question was posed by North Gauteng High Court Judge Neil Tuchten this week, when he criticised lax investigation and incompetence by police, before overturning a murder conviction of a man who killed his former girlfriend.
While Judge Tuchten did not directly refer to Pistorius’s trial by name, he did refer to a recent “high-profile trial”.
Judge Tuchten said both the prosecution and defence failed Sipho Samson Khubeka during his murder trial in the North Gauteng High Court.
Khubeka was sentenced to life in jail and has already served a few years of his sentence for the 2005 killing of Lucia Mahlangu.
It is still unclear who killed Mahlangu, but Judge Tuchten said there could have been other suspects, such as her new boyfriend, who disappeared after her death.
Judge Tuchten said if the police, prosecution and defence had done their work as they should have, justice could have been served.
After analysing all the evidence, he said: “I’m left with an uneasy feeling... I’m not sure, beyond reasonable doubt... about what happened the night Mahlangu was shot dead in her Leslie, Mpumalanga, home.”
“I regret having to come to this conclusion. The victim and her family are entitled to justice. This means a diligent, professional investigation into the circumstances of her death and a diligent, professional presentation of all evidence…
“There is, as I write (the judgment) a high-profile murder case pending in a court in this division in which no effort or expense has been spared in an attempt to arrive at the truth. So we know the State has the resources to thoroughly carry out the investigation and present to the court the evidence relevant to the charges which have been brought against (that) accused.
“I am sorry to say that nothing like that happened in this case.”
Mahlangu was shot in her RDP house either on Good Friday or Easter Sunday in 2005, but it could not be established that the .38 special revolver found in Khubeka’s possession was used to fire the only bullet sent for forensic testing.
The unlicensed .38 special was the only link between Khubeka and Mahlangu’s death.
A family member who was present during the shooting - only identified as Mrs Motaung in the appeal judgment - said while dressing for church, two shots were fired through the kitchen window, hitting Mahlangu. She found the woman’s new lover, only identified as Mnguni, under the bed when she entered the bedroom.
While she only heard two shots and there were only two holes in the window, Mahlangu was hit by at least four bullets. Two were lodged in her body, but it appeared no tests were done on these.
Mnguni, who “disappeared” after the incident, was never located or called as a witness. Neither were any tests done on him to establish whether gun residue was present on him which might indicate that he had fired a firearm.
Judge Tuchten pointed out various shortcomings in the case, such as the day of the killing, why there were two bullet holes in the window but four bullets hit Mahlangu, why did Mnguni leave town, did he have a firearm and were the paths of the bullets through the window consistent with the bullet wounds.
“All or most of these questions could have been answered by sound police work and preparation and questioning by counsel. But they were not,” said the judge.
He confirmed two charges - the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition - against Khubeka, but overturned his conviction on a murder charge
Pretoria News