Dewani remarks by Cele, Simelane inappropriate

South African Justice Minister Jeff Radebe was correct when he pointed out during his media briefing that the South African criminal justice system and Constitution would ensure that Shrien Dewani need have no concern about his right to a fair trial.

This must not however detract from the fact that Police Chief General Bheki Cele and National Prosecuting Authority head Menzi Simelane have been misguided in commenting on the matter in the manner in which they have done.

Cele’s remarks have been canvassed ad nausea in the past and need no further mention here.

In the case of the NPA boss however I agree with the views of Professor Pierre de Vos that the comments were “completely inappropriate” and uncalled for.

However, having said that, as de Vos says : “The courts are independent of the prosecuting authority … the judges will be able to clear their minds of any statements made by any state institutions.”

IOL quotes Simelane telling SABC 3 interviewer Tshepang Motsekuoa : “This is a pure criminal matter of somebody who murdered his wife while he should be celebrating his honeymoon.

“The facts here are that the accused, that is sought to be extradited, came to the country and committed what is a very heinous crime.

“As a matter of fact Mr Dewani is a fugitive because he ran away. He ran out of a country where there was a warrant of arrest for him so as a fugitive we then informed Interpol that we would like an international arrest warrant issued for him, so he was flagged internationally so he can’t go anywhere basically.”

The last part of this is factually incorrect as Dewani left South Africa with the consent of the police.

Where I also disagree with the views being expressed elsewhere is that the South African authorities are not required to prove a prima facie case.

The UK’s extradition agreement with South Africa does not provide for this but rather that the prosecution states that there is initial suspicion of an offence, which then constitutes sufficient grounds for extradition

However returning directly to the topic at hand, in the case of Simelane, the justice minister is wrong to say that the remarks are irrelevant.

They may well fall foul of the National Prosecuting Act 32 of 1998 along with the policies and code of ethics that flow from Section 179 of the Constitution and as prescribed by the NPA itself.

That should form the subject matter of an internal investigation by the NPA itself with the procedures already in place to deal with any complaints.

In addition people must distinguish Simelane from Cele.

In the case of the latter the police are there to gather all the evidence, in an unbiased manner, to be produced at court in order to obtain a conviction. If the evidence does not reflect that a crime has been committed or proves that the accused is innocent, the matter should not be proceeded with.

In the case of the NPA they are part of the prosecution who while making all evidence — their own and exculpatory — available to the court and the defence, are, in a manner of speaking, the lawyers acting on behalf of the victim and society.

In this regard Simelane is speaking on behalf of Anni Dewani albeit that some of what he is saying should not have been said at this time or at all.

If called upon to comment he should have simply said that it is a serious case receiving due care and attention.

What the justice minister should have said is that every incident that happens in this case seems to become the focal point of mass hysteria which, when examined properly, does not have an impact on the legal system or issues surrounding the case.

As has been stated by the legal team, Max Clifford and family of Shrien Dewani, their concern is not Cele or, I would imagine, Simelane but rather the influence they have on the people who are actually working on the case.

Those fears must never be summarily dismissed because regardless of what other areas the state might be suspicious of, the legal system, the law and the people tasked with implementing them have to be a real concern to any litigant.

Therefore Instead of dismissing those concerns, the checks and balances provided by the Constitution, the criminal justice system, the law and a free press should be explained at length to put people’s mind at rest.