HIGH COURT CLOSES REOPENED INQUEST INTO THE 1981 MURDER OF GRIFFITHS MXENGE
KASIBC_AUDIO
PIETERMARITZBURG, KWAZULU-NATAL – The KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Pietermaritzburg has officially closed the reopened inquest into the 1981 assassination of human rights lawyer and anti-apartheid activist, Mlungisi Griffiths Mxenge.
Presiding Judge Pieter Bezuidenhout ruled that because the matter had already been subjected to a formal criminal trial and extensive disclosures at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), no additional evidence could legally be led in a reopened inquest.
Historical Background and Legal Context
Griffiths Mxenge was assassinated in November 1981 by members of the Security Branch’s Vlakplaas death squad.
1982 Initial Inquest: Concluded that Mxenge had been killed by "unknown persons".
1989 Disclosures & Trial: Almond Nofomela’s confession while on death row exposed the Vlakplaas unit, leading to a criminal trial where former Vlakplaas commander Dirk Coetzee, Almond Nofomela, and David Tshikalange were convicted of the murder.
TRC Amnesty: All three convicted perpetrators were subsequently granted amnesty by the TRC in 1997.
2024 Reopening: The Minister of Justice reopened the inquest following a DPCI (Hawks) investigation to establish whether senior apartheid officials who ordered the assassination could be identified.
Key Findings of the Ruling
Ruling on preliminary legal questions, Judge Bezuidenhout held that it was the first time in South African legal history that an inquest had been reopened after a criminal trial had already taken place and concluded.
The court determined that:
Bar on Further Inquest Evidence: Once formal criminal proceedings have been instituted and concluded, a reopened inquest cannot hear additional evidence.
TRC Disclosures: Full disclosure regarding the operational execution and command chain behind the murder was already ventilated before the criminal court and the TRC.
The granting of amnesty does not nullify the original criminal trial. Absence of New Evidence: The State failed to demonstrate that it possessed new, tangible evidence capable of implicating specific uncharged individuals.
Next Steps
The court concluded that allowing the reopened inquest to proceed would not serve the interests of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
KASIPEOPLE