S v Mawelewele
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Duvenhage AJ |
| Judgment Date | 07 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | CC25/05 |
| Court | Venda Provincial Division |
| Hearing Date | 07 September 2005 |
| Citation | 2006 JDR 0482 (V) |
Duvenhage AJ:
The accused, Edward, Nndwamato Mawelewele, a 56 year old male, appeared on two counts of murder. Count 1 is that on or about 6 March 2005 and at or near Tshamutshedi village in the district of Thohoyandou, he unlawfully and intentionally killed Azwifaneli Ramukhadi by "chopping her with a spade and a lasher". Count 2 is that on the same date and at the same place as in count 1 unlawfully and intentionally killed Tshinakaho Tshokoto, a 63 year old female, by "chopping her
2006 JDR 0482 p2
Duvenhage AJ
with a lasher and a hammer". In both counts I use the same words as stated in the two indictments.
The subsequent proceedings showed that the person mentioned in count 1 was the daughter of the accused and the person in count 2 was his mother-in-law.
The charge sheet did not refer to section 51 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, but before pleading the state applied to insert into the charge sheet a reference to the aforementioned section. Mr Thomu, who appeared on behalf of the accused, had no objection to the aforesaid amendment. Mr Thomu also informed the court that he had already explained to the accused the provisions of the aforesaid section. He added that he also explained to the accused that he was informed beforehand that the state was going to ask to invoke section 51 of Act 105 of 1997. He was not surprised by the state. The case then proceeded on the basis that the state will rely on section 51 of Act 105 of 1997.
Following on the aforesaid, the accused was asked to plea and accused pleaded not guilty to both counts, whereupon Mr Thomu asked for an adjournment, stating that the pleas of not guilty was not in accordance with his instructions.
When the proceedings resumed Mr Thomu informed the court that the accused wishes to plead guilty to both counts. The accused confirmed that he pleads guilty to both counts. He also stated that he understands the counts of murder and that he is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily. He also stated that
2006 JDR 0482 p3
Duvenhage AJ
he is aware of the seriousness of the two counts.
Thereafter the court adjourned so that Mr Thomu could have the statement which he wished to hand in, in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977, properly typed.
When the court resumed after lunch, the accused was again asked if he stands by his plea of guilty. The accused confirmed that he stands by his plea of guilty.
Mr Thomu then read out the statement by the accused, that the accused made in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977. Further amendments were made to the statement. These were mostly typographical errors that were corrected. The interpreter read the statement out to accused, and also translated it to the accused. Accused confirmed that it was read out and translated and that he agrees with the contents of the statement. He also declared that he made it freely and voluntarily and that he was not forced to make it.
The accused also confirmed that the corrections on the statement referred to above was brought to his attention and that he agrees with the statement as it stands. He also confirmed that he countersigned the amendments and that he signed the statement itself with across. The statement was then accepted as exhibit A and it reads as follows:
"I, the undersigned, Edward Nndwamato Mawelewele, do hereby declare under oath as follows:
I am the accused in this matter.
I have read and understood the two counts of murder laid
2006 JDR 0482 p4
Duvenhage AJ
against me.
I plead guilty to the two counts of murder.
I admit that on the 6th day of March 2005 and at Tshamutshedzi village in the district of Thohoyandou I unlawfully and intentionally killed Aziwifaneli Ramukhadi by chopping her with a shovel, causing injuries which resulted into his (sic) death and further that the deceased is the person referred to in count one. (The word 'his' that I just read out should in fact be 'her'.)
I further admit that on the same date and place mentioned above I unlawfully and intentionally killed Tshinakaho Tshokoto by chopping her with a lasher and she died as a result of the injuries I inflicted on her body and I further admit that the deceased is the person referred to in count two."
Then under the heading:
"Circumstances surrounding the offence were as follows;
On the 5th and 6th day of March 2005 there was a prayer meeting which was held at my homestead at Tshidzini wherein the deceased in count one, Aziwifaneli Ramukhadi was asleep. Other members of the family and a certain unknown man of Makwerela was part of the prayer meeting.
The said prayer meeting started on the 5th of March 2005 and continued on the 6th of March 2005. It was an all night prayer.
2006 JDR 0482 p5
Duvenhage AJ
They were praying loudly to such an extent that I was unable to sleep during the course of the prayer.
On the second day of the prayer meeting I called my wife Gladys Mawelewele and told her that she should inform those people involved in the prayer meeting that they should minimise the noise or pray not loudly, so that I could sleep.
The deceased in count one and one Funanani Ramukhadi started to insult me in full view of the people attending the prayer.
My wife also joined the deceased insulting me, alleging that I should leave the common home in that I am unemployed and there is nothing I am doing in order to support the family.
At that time I had lost my employment. The deceased in count one and my wife continued to insult me up to the point wherein I became angry and picked up a shovel which was lying on the ground. I then started to chop the deceased in count one on her body. The rest of the people run away.
After chopping the deceased in count one, I then proceeded to the house where the deceased in count two was sleeping. I then chopped her with the lasher which I found inside the house when the deceased was sleeping.
When chopping the deceased in count two, I was
2006 JDR 0482 p6
Duvenhage AJ
stressed due to the fact that each time when my wife insulted me she would tell me that I am useless, at least the old lady in count two is taking care of the family in terms of support by a pension grant, unlike myself who is unemployed and cannot support the family.
During the occurrence of this incident, as I have already indicated, I was unemployed and as such I was unable to support my family.
I admit that I was not legally justified to kill both deceased in counts one and two and I admit that my actions were wrongful and unlawful.
I am making this statement freely and voluntarily and the consequences of this statement have been fully explained to me."
That is the end of the statement. The accused signed it and the Mr Thomu co-signed it.
The state accepted the plea of guilty by accused and the statement by accused. I was satisfied that the accused in fact pleaded guilty to both counts and that his statement in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 contained all the elements of the two counts admitted and the accused was found guilty on both counts.
Thereafter the state handed in the post mortem reports referring to the two deceased in counts 1 and 2 respectively and they were marked exhibits B and C. Both exhibits B and C were translated and interpreted to the accused. Accused and Mr
2006 JDR 0482 p7
Duvenhage AJ
Thomu both admitted the contents of the two post mortem reports.
A photo album showing the scene of the crimes was also handed in as exhibit D. Accused said that he did not want to see the photographs and he added that he does not know what happened. When asked by the court what this remark means, he said that he does not deny that he committed the offences. He knows that he killed the two people referred to in the charge sheet, but he does not want to look at the photographs. It must be mentioned that when accused gave evidence in mitigation, he was asked by the court why did he change from a lasher to a hammer when he attacked the deceased in count two. His reply was that he was "surprised that I did it, because I did not know what happened between myself and the family". As I was concerned that perhaps accused wanted to convey that he did not remember everything that happened, I, at the end of his evidence in chief, again took it up with him. He again stated that he remembered everything of the killings. He said he remembered how it...
To continue reading
Request your trial