* This story has been updated.
Bloemfontein – The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on Thursday morning dismissed the appeal of AbaThembu King Buyelelkhaya Dalindyebo against his conviction and sentence for crimes relating to the disciplining of his subjects in 1995 and 1996.
The court however upheld his appeal against his conviction of culpable homicide, setting it aside, and replacing his 15-year sentence with an effective 12-year prison sentence.
This means that after drawn out proceedings stretching over close to 20 years since the commission of the crimes, the embattled king will ultimately spend three years less in prison than initially determined.
The Eastern Cape High Court in Mthatha had convicted Dalindyebo of 10 crimes in July 2013, including arson, culpable homicide, kidnapping, defeating the ends of justice and assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This after the Paramount Chief of the AbaThembu set fire to the homesteads of three of his subjects after accusing them of breaching tribal rules.
He was also found to have publicly assaulted three young men so brutally that they probably would have died, was it not for medical intervention.
King Dalindyebo alleged that the assaults were committed as punishment for crimes committed by the men, which included housebreaking and rape. No trial was conducted by the king before the punishment was meted out.
A fourth young man was apparently killed by members of the community after the king ordered that he be assaulted as well. The king was ultimately charged with murder, but convicted of culpable homicide for this death.
The State alleged that the king then unduly threatened and intimidated the father of the young man who had been killed and in so doing sought to prevent criminal charges being laid against him.
This earned him a conviction on the charge of defeating the ends of justice.
The high court also convicted the king on a count of kidnapping. This, after he forced the wife and six children of one of his subjects to accompany him to his palace, in order to induce their husband and father to present himself there.
King Dalindyebo appealed against his high court convictions on the basis that his trial was unfair. He contended that because his trial had commenced approximately eight years after the events on which his convictions were based, he was hampered in his ability to adduce and challenge evidence and asserted that this was in violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial in terms of the Constitution.
He also claimed that he had had many legal representatives who had failed to represent him competently and effectively. He further accused Judge Alkema of the Eastern Cape High Court of abandoning his objectivity and “unjustifiably descending into the arena” with his persistent questioning.
The king also claimed that the two houses he had set fire to belonged to him, and that he could therefore not be charged with arson.
With regards to the charges of assault, Dalindyebo said that he had only administered “light lashes” in order to prevent his supporters from assaulting them further.
In respect of the conviction on culpable homicide, the king contended that there was no evidence linking him to the actions of his supporters who had beaten the young man to death. And that his sentences on all the charges levelled against him were “shockingly disproportionate”.
The appeal court found that although it was a constitutional right that criminal trials should begin and conclude without delay, much, if not all of the delay in this case was caused by the appellant being obstructive and employing dubious means to thwart the administration of justice, including the intimidation of complainants.
Pressure had to be brought to bear by the community for the prosecution to be reinstated.
“To our minds, it is clear that the appellant had no interest in his trial being finalized,” the appeal judges conclude.
They also found that his complaint concerning the quality of his legal representation was devoid of substance and that the judge’s interventions were justifiable and did not amount to subjectivity.
With regards to the assault charges, the appeal court confirmed that Dalinyebo had been responsible for the savage beatings.
As for the charge of culpable homicide, the appeal judges pointed to the fact that there had been only one witness who testified that the king had ordered the deceased to be beaten like the others.
In their judgment, the appeal judges agreed with the trial court’s condemnation of the manner in which the king ruled.
They go further to say that: “His behaviour was all the more deplorable because the victims of his reign of terror were the vulnerable rural poor, who were dependent upon him. Our Constitution does not countenance such behaviour.”
Quoting case law and legal writings they pointed out that, should an accused foresee the possibility “that in setting fire to his or her own property, damage could result to the property of another, and proceeded reckless of such possibility, liability for arson could ensue.” The conviction on the charges of arson was thus well founded.
On the charge of culpable homicide however, the court found that there had not been conclusive evidence that Dalindyebo had been responsible for the death of the young man who had been beaten by his subjects, and that this conviction should be set aside.
As to the king’s contention that his sentences were too severe, the appeal court disagreed, saying: “The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. The appellant behaved shamefully and abused his position as king. The period of imprisonment he is to serve is no more than just desserts for what, given his position of authority, are after all particularly heinous crimes.”
According to online reports, Justice Department spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga said Dalindyebo must report to a correctional centre within 24 hours.
After the SCA’s judgment on Thursday, the DA revoked Dalindyebo membership.
Dalindyebo had joined the DA in July 2013.
DA spokesperson Refiloe Nt'sekhe said that the decision was in line with the party’s constitution.
ANA and IOL