A judge has thrown out the case after just two months, allowing Dewani (suspected of plotting his wife’s murder) to walk free. The family have said that they’ve been failed by the justice system, but have they?
It took the South African authorities four years to put the British busniess man, Shrien Dewani on trial on accusations that he paid ‘hitmen’ to kill his wife while the couple were on honeymoon in South Africa. Once the trial had finally came to fruition, the prosecutors (the State) argued that Dewani had paid 15,000 Rand (£830) in a plot with taxi driver Zola Tongo and others to kidnap and murder his wife while they were visiting Cape Town in November 2010. The state argued that Dewani was secretly gay and therefore had a motive of freeing himself of the marriage, however Judge Jeanette Traverso said today that the evidence presented by the prosecution fell “far below the threshold” of what a reasonable court could convict on.
Prosecutors said bisexual Mr Dewani, from Westbury-on-Trym near Bristol, had long planned to get out of the relationship to Swedish-raised Anni, and arranged the attack in which he would escape unharmed and Anni would be killed.
But Dewani’s defence team criticised prosecution witnesses and said the case against him was weak.
Giving her ruling in Cape Town on an application by Dewani’s defence lawyer Francois van Zyl to dismiss the prosecution, Judge Traverso said chief prosecution witness cab driver Zola Tongo’s claims about the murder of Dewani were “riddled with contradictions” and “highly debatable”.
She said the evidence of Tongo, who testified against Mr Dewani after entering a plea bargain, was “riddled with contradictions”, while others had lied on oath.
Dewani has always denied plotting with others to murder his bride, whose lifeless body was found in the back of a taxi in a rough township, on November 14, 2010.
Three men – Tongo, Mziwamadoda Qwabe and gunman Xolile Mngeni – have already been convicted for their part in Anni’s murder, when the Dewanis’ chauffeur-driven late-night tour of a township was hijacked.
Judge Traverso said it was crucial for the state’s case to prove that Dewani entered into an agreement with others to have Anni killed.
She said a defendant was entitled to be discharged if there was no possibility of conviction unless he entered the witness box and incriminated himself.
Tongo was the only accomplice witness, she said, adding that such evidence should be treated with “caution”.
Tongo’s version needed to be corroborated specifically where it implicated the accused.
Details such as where he picked up and dropped off Dewani and his wife did not provide corroboration, the judge said.
“It is what was said during these events which is at issue and for that there is only the version of Tongo,” she added.
She said the same applied to phone calls between Tongo and Dewani.
“This telephone communication does not in itself corroborate what was said during those calls, it merely confirms that communication took place.”
Dewani met Tongo in a hotel after the killing. Giving evidence earlier the cab driver said it was “nonsense” that Dewani bought him a thank you card and gave him cash out of pity for what the driver had endured.
But the judge said Tongo and his accomplices Qwabe and Mngeni were “intelligent men” and dismissed the prosecution claim that they would have carried out a contract killing for Dewani for “a few thousand rand”.
The prosecution alleged that the men carried out the killing for 15,000 rand (£830).
Qwabe is part-way through a 25-year jail sentence. Mngeni was serving life for firing the shot that killed Mrs Dewani, but died in prison from a brain tumour.
So, can we agree with the claim of the victims family that the justice system has failed here? It’s worth noting that the trial did not prove Dewani’s innocence but that the court couldn’t rely on evidencee given by three witnesses who themselves had been convicted of the crime. As it stands, the justice system has not failed here, according to South Africa’s Criminal Procedure Act, an accused can be declared not guilty at the close of the prosecution’s case if the court feels there is insufficient evidence to show he or she committed the crime. Thus, in accordance with this act, the judge has deemed the evidence provided by the state to be insufficient and unreliable due to the disparities and lies of the three witnesses who, themselves were convicted of the crime. However, can we argue that the prosecution and police failed Anni Dewani and her family? After all, the state’s evidence was ‘insufficient’ and yet they had four years to collaborate with the police on forming a case against Mr Dewani. However, the case relied very little on police evidence but was rather focused, almost entirely, on the testimonies of the three witnesses. However, due to their own involvement in the murder and the countless inconsistencies, the Judge, within her right, has declared Mr Dewani to be not guilty and in my opinion, this doesn’t represent a failure of the justice system, the three men who carried out the hit on Anni Dewani have all been prosecuted and although Mr Dewani has walked free, there simply was not sufficient evidence (imperative in any trial, especially in one this big) to convince the judge of Mr Dewani’s involvement in the murder of his wife.
topicaloutlook 