Christmas cheer for two men convicted of murder of ANC councillor in Knysna

On the eve of Christmas, the Constitutional Court has granted a reprieve to two men convicted of the murder of Knysna Municipality councillor, Mzukisi Molosi. 

The convictions of Mawanda Makhala and Velile Waxa have been set aside, allowing them to appeal the ruling made by lower courts and thereby underscoring a vital concern for justice amidst contentious testimonies.

The Constitutional Court granted them leave to appeal in a ruling delivered on December 20, 2024, which marks a significant judicial stance on the admissibility of witness statements under the Criminal Procedure Act, particularly when a key witness recants previously incriminating statements.

The case centres around the tragic events of July 23, 2018, when Molosi was shot and killed after attending a school governing body meeting. Evidence presented during the trial suggested that Makhala and Waxa, along with a third accused, orchestrated the murder, allegedly driven by political animosity and personal grudges.

Molosi, an ANC councillor, was gunned down outside his home in Concordia, Knysna. Makhala and Waxa were convicted in 2021 by the Western Cape High Court, Eastern Circuit Local Division (Knysna), for murder, possession of an unlicensed firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. They were each sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, and five years’ imprisonment on the other counts.

A file picture of members of the ANC Women's League demonstrating in Knysna during the Mzukisi Molosi murder trial in 2019. Picture: Facebook

Initially, Makhala's brother, Luzuko Makhala, provided statements to the police implicating himself and the two applicants. However, during trial proceedings, he recanted his testimony and claimed that police had coerced him into making false statements. This recantation became pivotal when the lower courts relied heavily on his original statements for the convictions.

The High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the use of these statements, affirming that they were admissible despite Luzuko’s recantation. They cited the need for prosecutorial tools like Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act to combat organized crime, asserting that the witness’s initial statements met the criteria for admissibility due to corroborative evidence.

However, the Constitutional Court disagreed, leading to a groundbreaking judgment. A central question that the court had to consider was whether a conviction could be sustained solely on recanted statements without substantial corroborative evidence. The court concluded that the lack of compelling evidence, aside from the unreliable statements, was insufficient to uphold the convictions.

In the judgment, the Constitutional Court highlighted that the reliance on recanted testimony infringes upon the fair trial rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The relationship between witness credibility and the weight of their statements is crucial, it was stated in the judgment. It further said a just legal process must not convict individuals based on compromised testimonies.