Recent Case: General principles and specific offences

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: (2011) 24 SACJ 356
• Author: Louise Jordaan
• Date: 06 September 2019
• Published date: 06 September 2019
• Pages: 356-367

receNt cases

General principles and specic

offences

lOUise JOrDaaN

University of South Africa, Pre toria

General Principles

Assistance in another’s suicide – causation

In S v Agliotti 2011 (2) SACR 437 (GSJ) the acc used was charged on

four counts: conspiracy to murder p ersons A, B , C and D in term s of

section 18(2)(a) of the Riotous Ass embly Act 17 of 1956; attempted

murder in respec t of person A and, on t he third count, conspiracy to

murder person K. On the third count, it was alleged in the indict ment

that the accused had conspired, together with other people, with

person K himself (a prominent busines sman, Mr Bret t Kebble) to aid

or procure the murder of K. In terms of count 4, the accused was also

charged with the murder of K. As pointed out by Kgomo J, t his was

not a “ru n-of-the-mil l case of murder and conspir acy” but was about

“hidden and/or sinis ter agendas perpetrated by shoddy char acters as

well as ostensibly crooked and/or greedy business persons. It is about

corrupt civil servants as well as prominent politicians or political ly

connected people w ining and dining with devils incarnates under

cover of darkness” (at para 24). The bizarre fact s as related by the

state’s star witness, N, were brief‌ly that the accused was a pin man, a

so-called “capo regime” – a person in charge of “soldiers” who execute

the orders of a Maf‌ia boss in a maf‌ia-li ke hierarchical organisation

involved in criminal activities headed by K, t he so-called “Godfather”

(at para 184). According to this state witness (N), K ordered the killing

or assault by his “soldiers” of various business rivals and enemies, but

eventually also ordered, or requested his (K’s) own killing. According

to N’s evidence, he was told that K wanted a pill with which to commit

suicide b ecause of d iff‌iculties in his organisation and that if he did

not f‌ind that pi ll with which to end his life “he would end up in

a menta l i nstitution and at worst, in prison from those troubles” (at

para 204). Since N was unable to source such a pill (one that could not

be traced in a pos t-mortem, as requested by another top me mber of

356

(2011) 24 SACJ 356

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd