Publications
Partners
LEGAL arguments for paralympian Oscar Pistorius’ high-profile murder case are winding down, with sentencing due on Tuesday.
Whatever verdict Judge Thokozile Masipa will come up with in sentencing Pistorius for culpable homicide (she found him not guilty of premeditated murder), one thing is certain: the verdict will bring into sharp focus the gaping divide in the South African criminal justice system.
Having been exposed to so much commentary from TV, newspaper, internet and radio on the case, I personally believe many also think the case will show that in South Africa there are two sets of justice: one for the rich and one for the poor.
The case of Pistorius, who has spent a great deal of money on this murder case to do his utmost to walk free in the end, will fuel the above statement if he is acquitted or receives a lenient sentence.
Given that there are still poor people who are arrested, charged and sentenced because they do not have unlimited resources to find good defence attorneys, the reaction will be understandable.
A lawyer trained at the University of the Western Cape, who prefers to remain anonymous and is known to this writer, says the Pistorius case will show that who ends up in prison in South Africa and who walks free is a rich-and-poor issue.
I do not mean to put forward a point of view that says the justice system in South Africa is so damaged that rich individuals can buy themselves an exoneration or lenient sentence, but I am trying to make a certain point.
We heard this week that Pistorius offered the Steenkamps about R350 000, which shows he is prepared to use all the resources at his disposal to gain an acquittal.
He obviously believes money will help him out, thinking this gesture will stand him in good stead during mitigation of sentence.
This week a probation officer testifying for the defence, Annette Vergeer, disclosed that Pistorius has been making monthly payments to the family of his late girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, after he shot her to death in the early hours of February 14 last year.
But prosecutor Gerrie Nel said Reeva’s parents, June and Barry, had rejected a lump sum payment from the sale of an automobile as “blood money” and promised to repay the monthly stipend.
Dup de Bruyn, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Steenkamps, told reporters on Wednesday that the payments of R6 000 per month for their “rent and expenses” began when the family found itself facing financial difficulties in March last year, and that they continued until last month.
Another point showing that Pistorius wanted to make the most use of money to walk free became evident when he hired a probation officer, Annette Vergeer, who clearly and blindly pushed for him not to go to prison, saying that South African prisons could not accommodate Pistorius.
This was rejected and irked the department of justice, which felt South Africans and the world were not told the truth.
It is my contention therefore that money determines who sits in jail in South Africa. It also determines who gets to have a trial, and it can influence the outcome of a trial.
This is supported by the fact that many people still languish in South African jails until they are charged, because they do not have money for bail.
This is not how the legal system is supposed to work. It is just fundamentally unfair that defendants have to languish in jail because they can't buy their way out.
- Fin24
