Mulalo Sivhidzho used her chartered accountant husband for his money and property.
The mother of slain accountant Avhatakali Netshisaulu said this to a social worker who compiled a probation report into the personal circumstances and background of Sivhidzho’s co-murderers, Ntabudzeni Matzhenene and Sello Johannes Arnold.
Social worker Annette Vergeer told the Johannesburg High Court that Avhatakali’s mother, Dzudzanani Netshisaulu, had said: “She (Sivhidzho) planned to kill him after he had bought her a car and a house.
“There is not a day that goes by that she does not think of the brutal manner in which her son was killed,” Vergeer added.
Sivhidzho and her co-murderers were convicted for killing Avhatakali on December 7 last year – four years to the day of the murder.
In their probation reports, Matzhenene and Arnold indicated they would appeal the guilty verdict.
Avhatakali’s father, Mathatha Tsedu, the head of Media24’s journalism academy, said he would never come to terms with the brutal manner in which his son was slain.
“The fact that neither of them (murderers) had ever shown any remorse has made this even more devastating and hurtful.”
Earlier, the State sought to rebuff a submission by Dr Eon Sonnekus, a forensic criminologist, who described Sivhidzho as a “gentle soul” and not “a violent and vindictive assassin”.
But state prosecutor Maro Papachristoforou disputed this, showing Sonnekus the photographs depicting the aftermath of Netshisaulu’s fiery death, including his charred remains in his car’s boot.
“Would you argue that it’s quite a heinous sight… that the deceased died a very cruel and extremely violent and painful death? Would you agree that the killers… could be described as violent, horrible and vindictive,” she asked, to which Sonnekus replied in the affirmative.
Asked how Sivhidzho’s alleged mental disorders influenced her to commit the crime, Sonnekus said they were a contributory factor.
Judge Naren Pandya interjected, asking if Sonnekus was “suggesting Sivhidzho didn’t know what she was doing”.
Sonnekus replied in the affirmative.
Papachristoforou sought to discredit Sonnekus, arguing that he was not qualified to give “factual information” on issues like traumatic stress and mental imbalances. This, she said, was because he was not a qualified clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.
She added that his version was based on “presumptions” and “prejudiced” relatives of Sivhidzho.
To back this, she called Professor Gerald Labuschagne, a commander in the SA Police Service’s investigative psychology unit, to the witness stand.
Labuschagne said Sonnekus was not allowed to make diagnoses on issues like clinical psychology and psychiatrist, as prescribed by the Health Professions Council Act.
“The fact that there are overlaps doesn’t make you an expert,” said Labuschagne.
He added there was no indication that these post-traumatic events left any lasting residue on Sivhidzho’s life.