Cape Town - The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed the appeal against conviction by former independent Knysna ward councillor Velile Waxa and former Knysna municipal official Mawande Makhala, both of whom were sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2018 murder of Knysna council’s ANC chief whip Victor Molosi.
Waxa and Makhala were convicted together with hitman Vela Patrick Dumile in the Western Cape High Court sitting in Knysna, back in December 2019, on one count of murder, one count of possession of an unlicensed firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition.
They were each sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and five years’ imprisonment on the remaining counts.
Molosi was shot and killed on his way home after attending a school governing body meeting at Concordia High School, where he was chairperson, in July 2018.
The State built its case largely on the testimony of Mawande’s brother Luzuko Makhala, who turned State witness after the murder.
Turning State witness under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows a witness to provide evidence for the prosecution which incriminates him. If the testimony is frank and honest, the witness may be discharged from prosecution.
Luzuko provided the police with two separate statements incriminating Waxa and Makhala in Molosi’s murder. The high court admitted the statements into evidence and convicted the appellants.
However, when Lukuzo was called upon to give evidence, he recanted the contents of his statement.
In his original statement, Luzuko had said Dumile was the gunman. However, when it came to testifying in court, he left out all the material details of the murder.
Instead, he testified that the incriminating portions of the statement were lies forced upon him by the police.
This in turn led to Waxa and Makhala appealing their conviction as they questioned whether the trial court was correct in convicting them in light of the recanted statement.
The SCA considered the statements made in light of the principle of legality and found that they were not obtained in violation of Luzuko’s rights
The court said: “There was nothing done to obtain the statements which would have constituted any material detriment to the administration of justice.”