By Bahle Gama
Former Minister of Public Works and Transport Ntuthuko Dlamini has been sentenced to 20 years without a fine for the three counts of murder he was convicted of last year.
The court ordered that all sentences run concurrently when initially it was 20 years with no fine for each of the counts which amounted to 60 years of imprisonment respectively.
On September 7, 2020, Dlamini was arrested for shooting the three men following a heated disagreement, which was caught on video that was played in court on September 12, 2022, showing him gunning down the men.
He had pleaded not guilty to all charges. On December 12, 2022, Dlamini was found guilty of three counts of murder and one count of contravening Section 11 (1) as read with Section 11 (8) (a) (i) of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1964.
Read More: Guilty as charged! Former minister Ntuthuko found guilty of killing 3 men
On Wednesday, March 15, Judge Maxine Langwenya rendered the sentence where she stated that in the murder of Themba Andreas Tsabedze, Sikhulu Shongwe and Simon Dlamini the former minister was sentenced to 20 years each and five years with an option of a fine of E5 000 for the illegal possession of a firearm.
Judge Langwenya stated that two of the deceased persons left behind widows and children who expressed their grievances in different affidavits submitted.
Simon’s wife stated that her husband left behind nine children and the youngest was in Form 3 when he died. The child subsequently dropped out of school because of Simon’s widow’s inability to pay school fees as the sole breadwinner was dead.
Simon reportedly grew vegetables that the wife would sell at the market. After he was shot, the wife averred that she had to hire a motor vehicle to take her husband to the hospital which was expensive for her as she is unemployed.
She further stated that she was solely responsible for the payment of her husband’s medical bills and never received assistance from anyone.
In her affidavit, Simon’s wife stated that she lost a breadwinner as he was also rearing livestock and poultry, which reportedly died after his death as he was the only one who knew how to rear them.
As a result, she suffers from constant headaches and stresses about the things she is unable to do as most of the chores were done by her husband.
Meanwhile, Tsabedze’s widow informed the court that her husband left behind six children and 23 grandchildren. As a sole breadwinner, he ploughed fields to sustain his family and since his death, she has been unable to do so, especially in the manner her husband used to.
She further submitted that her health deteriorated since his death and has recently been diagnosed with hypertension. eLuyengweni Indvuna Justice Ginindza also submitted to the court that the three deceased persons were members of the Inner Council and when they were murdered were part of a delegation of Bandlancane which was carrying a task it had been assigned by Indlunkhulu.
They were reportedly all very handy and would volunteer their services to assist community members and Indlunkhulu. Ginindza also submitted that eLuyengweni Indlunkhulu played a lead role in admonishing the deceased’s children and relatives against revenging and avenging their deaths and taking the law into their own hands.
Judge Langwenya stated that regarding the crime, the punishment imposed must not be disproportionate to the offence. The sentence imposed should serve the public interest and not necessarily the wishes of the community.
The reason is that the interests of society are not served by too harsh a sentence, but equally so, they are not properly served by one that is too lenient.
Read More: Enough is enough! PM vows to hunt down terrorists
“Put differently, the public interest requires that punishment imposed should serve as a deterrent to other would-be offenders, serve as a preventative measure to crime as well as rehabilitate offenders,” she said.
The Judge further stated that the court had considered Dlamini’s personal circumstances coupled with the impression it has of him having a qualification in law and being an accomplished user of firearms from a fairly young age.
The Judge stated that as a first-time offender, the court has taken that into account but that was not in the interest of justice nor possible to suspend part of his sentence regarding the counts of murder.
She further stated that she was aware that Dlamini was a businessman and employs several people who are likely to lose their jobs if he is incarcerated for a long time.
She continued that the personal circumstances of Dlamini and the direct consequences of the sentence to be imposed could not outweigh the seriousness of the offences and the impact of their commission on those interests which sought to be protected by law.
“A period of imprisonment is, in my view, justified,” said Judge Langwenya. She further stated that no matter what sentence the court could impose it will never bring back the lives of the people he killed or wipe the impact of their death on their families, communities and relatives.
“The sentence should however reflect that this court abhors and condemns the unlawful taking of lives. In line with its mandate, this court must try to protect the lives of others by deterring likeminded persons as the accused,” she said.
She added that the crimes Dlamini was convicted of are serious, appealing and unnecessary and the families of the deceased persons are entitled to expect that the crimes committed be punished accordingly.
“Considering the proximity in time and place, I will order that the sentences imposed for the three counts of murder should run concurrently,” she said.
