Constitutional Court considers Unisa law student’s bid to overturn murder conviction

The Constitutional Court reserved judgment in an application by Liqhayiya Tuta who claimed he was wrongly convicted of murder. Picture: File

The Constitutional Court reserved judgment in an application by Liqhayiya Tuta who claimed he was wrongly convicted of murder. Picture: File

Published Feb 10, 2022

Share

Pretoria - The Constitutional Court this week reserved judgment in an application by Liqhayiya Tuta, a Unisa LLB student who claimed he was wrongly convicted of the 2018 murder of a police officer.

Tuta was sentenced to life in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, for stabbing to death Constable Nkosinathi Sithole and injuring his colleague, Constable Lawrence Makgaela.

The two officers were patrolling the streets of Sunnyside when they chased Tuta, believing he had stolen a laptop. He claimed that he did not know the two were police officers and acted in self defence because he thought he was being accosted by criminals.

Tuta turned to the apex court as he claimed his constitutional rights to a fair trial were trampled on by Judge Bert Bam, who had convicted and sentenced him.

With the aid of advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, he applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal both his conviction and sentence.

One of the objections raised was that Judge Bam, during the trial, intervened when the State cross-examined him about his intentions that night when he stabbed the officers.

It was said his claim of self-defence was never tested by the prosecution as the judge intervened while the prosecutor asked him questions.

Ngcukaitobi said this constituted an irregularity in law.

Regarding his sentence of life imprisonment, it was argued that the judge simply applied the law laid down in the Minimum Sentences Act. It stipulates the ultimate sentence if there are no mitigating factors present to warrant a lesser sentence.

It was argued the judge simply applied the law, without establishing whether there were mitigating factors.

Judge Bam at the time rejected Tuta’s version of self defence, and questioned why two officers, while patrolling crime-ridden Sunnyside shortly before midnight, would for no reason attack two pedestrians.

Tuta earlier testified that he and his friend had been heading home, when they noticed they were being followed by an unmarked red Polo vehicle.

They started running in different directions and the two occupants of the car, who they did not know were SAPS officers at the time, chased them on foot. Sithole apprehended Tuta, who then stabbed him.

Makgaela, who came to his colleague’s aid, was also stabbed.

Tuta ran away from the scene and went to the police station the next day, where he told them what had happened. He left his phone number and address at the police station and he was arrested later that day.

Makgaela, who had recovered from his injuries, testified that both he and Sithole wore SAPS issued bullet proof vests over their civilian clothes that night. He said there were street lights and Tuta must have seen the vests.

He said he removed his vest when he gave chase because it was too heavy.

It was argued before the Constitutional Court that if the judge allowed the prosecution to put the State’s case to Tuta when he was questioned in court, it would have become clear he feared for his life that night and acted in self defence.

The prosecution, on the other hand, said he did receive a fair trial, although the judge did intervene when he was questioned about his intentions when he stabbed the officers.

According to the State, Tuta knew exactly what the prosecution’s case against him was from the start – namely that he knew the two people who chased him were the police.

Pretoria News