HANDS OFF MASIPA Justice does not seek truth according to the public- Judge Masipa unfairly judged “Judges there to work on facts, not popular sentiment” A case of brutal, racially motivated murders still haunts me till today. This case was about three women- Jocelyn Lesito, Victoria Ndweni and Constance Moeletsi who were strangled while working the night shift in 2006. Their bodies were apparently stuffed in a washing machine; only later to be found in bins at a family-owned laundry-mat in Vereeniging. Their only crime was to fight for better working conditions and union representation in the work place. The white man accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence and the case was struck off the roll. This is but an example of many cases handled by the State which saw unfortunate verdicts and sadly justice favour the prepared and resourced. Judge Masipa has suddenly come under scrutiny post her verdict on the Oscar Pistorius case. A number of those whom are unhappy with her judgement have drawn conclusions on her credibility based on, their sentiments which were fuelled by a trending assumption that there was prima facie evidence that Oscar murdered Reeva with intention. We have conveniently forgotten that from the onset there were questions around tampering of evidence, the initial Investigating Officer had to be recused from the case due to his credibility as a witness. The prosecution did confess that they largely relied on circumstantial evidence in order to prove premeditated murder. The question or disenchantment shouldn’t be directed at Judge Masipa’s ability to interpret facts presented to her, but it should be the effectiveness and efficiency of the SAPS in gathering evidence so that the NPA can present a water tight case to the judge in court. The reality is that the burden always rested on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the accused committed premeditated murder and that there was an intention to murder the deceased. We have seen a bungle of cases which were perceived by the public as water tight cases, such as racially motivated cases where workers were murdered in cold blood on farms. Sadly the convictions have come few and far in between due to insufficient evidence. The reality is that in our system the justice still favours the wealthy who can afford experienced legal practitioners who navigate loopholes in our own judicial system. The unfortunate public sentiments also affirm our infantile and simplistic understanding of the role of a judge in a case. The judge doesn’t necessarily seek truth according to what we believe is truth. The judge interprets facts presented and applies the law in order to give a verdict befitting of facts presented. Therefore both parties (accuse and defendant) need to present their interpretations of the truth and convince the judge beyond reasonable doubt that their presentation is indeed truth without doubt. The case of Reeva Steenkamp and Pistorius doesn’t require legal practitioners and the prosecution to merely assess the verdict of Judge Masipa; however it compels us to frankly interrogate our justice system from the moment the case is reported, investigating officers are designated to investigate and the handling of sensitive evidence. Prosecutor Nel did a sterling job despite some of the shortcomings with respect to substantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence in such a case was already a hindrance yet the state maximised what it had. In a case where there is no direct witness to the murder or someone who can factually corroborate the events of the day it does become a burden for the prosecution to prove their case. We must desist from prematurely labelling Judge Masipa as someone who has aborted justice by coming to the verdict that she came to. One wonders had she been a white male judge, what public sentiments would we be mumbling in our critic; possibly accusing the judge of racial sympathy towards the accused. The case of Oscar Pistorius was sadly a case which afforded self- anointed analysts and self-proclaimed experts in the case to come to conclusions way before the trial even begun. There were already media headlines written boldly “guilty” about Oscar Pistorius. Our reliance on media for information is imperative and it remains one of the most immediate and closest sources for any case of public interest, however the media can also unintentionally create an expectation which feeds public perception or influence sentiments. The case has been tragic impacting on lives of families affected. The reality is that Reeva will never return; the events on what happened that day is known by Oscar and unfortunately Reeva. All that should happen is that justice must prevail. Ours is not to judge those that are bestowed with the mammoth responsibility of ensuring that justice is done, however we must reach a point where all angles are explored legally in order to see justice being served. The verdict might have been a shock, and others vehemently opposing it; however this can’t be a spring board for disparagement, ridicule or interrogation of the authority of the judge. Indeed they aren’t immune to criticism in the fraternity; however the reproach must be constructive, informed and seeking to provide constructive advice to assist the prosecution in its legal quest for truth and justice
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:11:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015