/ 4 October 1996

Was the murderer really a student?

Mungo Soggot

DID the man who killed a reveller at a party thrown by soccer celebrity Doctor Khumalo really study criminology, sociology, psychology and Zulu at the University of Zululand?

This was the question that vexed lawyers this week as they debated the sentence to be imposed on Sipho Tshabalala who rocked the cream of society at that fatal party.

Tshabalala was found guilty in June of murdering Grant Moabi, after a brawl about soccer teams and a bottle of brandy, in a trial that has encapsulated the banality of murder South African-style.

Tshabalala has been allowed to carry his gun while on bail after being convicted of murder. The debonair 27-year-old has treated the packed courtroom to a dazzling fashion display which culminated this week in his appearance in a flowing blue and gold robe, matching slippers and designer sunglasses.

When the trial began at the Rand Supreme Court in May, Judge Lucy Mailula heard how Tshabalala had arrived at the party fresh from the Rugby World Cup final at Ellis Park last year, his face painted with the South African flag. During the evening he had argued with Moabi and Bobby Motaung – son of Kaizer Chiefs boss Kaizer Motaung – about the relative merits of rival soccer teams Jomo Cosmos and Kaizer Chiefs. A few hours later there had been a squabble about a bottle of brandy, at which Tshabalala had pulled out his pistol and shot Moabi dead.

Judge Mailula rejected Tshabalala’s account of the fatal party. The accused claimed Moabi had produced a gun first, prompting him to fire a pre-emptive shot in self- defence.

The judge favoured the version of events told by Bobby Motaung who insisted Moabi had not carried a gun to the party. Judge Mailula said she was not convinced Tshabalala had been that drunk at the party as he had been able to navigate his car shortly afterwards.

This week she and her two assessors heard

additional evidence which could have affected sentence. Tshabalala told them that while studying he designed commemorative coins for the South African Mint. The Department of Correctional Services, which said he was a student at the University of Zululand, told them Tshabalala was a suitable candidate for a sentence of correctional supervision.

The prosecutor, Mongeza Nqoro, called Lindi Moabi, the deceased’s widow, to the stand. Moabi, a marketing manager at Syfrets, described how she supported several dependants and a two-year-old child who suffered from cerebral palsy. After Nqoro had finished his cross-examination, Judge Mailula intervened to ask Moabi the crucial question: how had the murder affected her? Moabi replied the trauma associated with her husband’s death had caused her to miscarry a child.

Tshabalala’s counsel Mannie Witz argued for a sentence of correctional supervision. “It is clear that one life has already been lost. It is now up to your Ladyship to see another life is not wasted.” He said Tshabalala had, up until the shooting, led a blameless life but had lost his cool in the heady atmosphere following the Rugby World Cup. “This was not cold-blooded murder.”

He cited a batch of cases in which murderers had been given a sentence of correctional supervision, including one in which a drunk policeman had shot a civilian in the back.

Nqoro retaliated with a list of cases in which correctional supervision had been rejected as an appropriate sentence. Witz said most of these were irrelevant.

Two of the precedents Nqoro cited involved fraud. Perhaps the most startling case he read out quietly to Judge Mailula was that of the Appellate Division decision in State v Kensley, an extraordinary murder case in which the accused shot two tranvestites who had enticed him down to a Cape Town beach with the promise of sex. When he discovered they were men he killed them and injured two others who had accompanied him to the beach. The Appeal Court rejected his request for a sentence of correctional supervision, upholding the trial judge’s four-year prison sentence.

Nqoro said the state wanted a prison sentence for Tshabalala. To Judge Mailula’s question “short or long”, he replied “15 years”.

The final lap of the case was devoted to a bizarre pursuit of proof that Tshabalala in fact attended classes at the University of Zululand – evidence which could have swayed the judge `s decision on sentence. Although Tshabalala produced a flattering letter of commendation from the university’s vice- chancellor, the prosecution insisted on more proof.

Nqoro, who insisted Tshabalala did not attend his classes or take exams, grilled Tshabalala about the various lecturers at the university and the whereabouts of their offices.

After several delays due to Nqoro’s vigorous efforts to prove Tshabalala did not attend, he finally conceded the accused was a student at the institution.

At the time of going to press Judge Mailula had yet to pass sentence.