Law student out to overturn life sentence
The University of SA student is arguing that an intervention by a criminal court judge had made his trial unfair and led to him being found guilty in 2019
Image: 123RF/STOCKSTUDIO44
A law student who stabbed two police officers allegedly believing they were criminals out to rob him is attempting to overturn his murder and life sentence in the Constitutional Court.
The University of SA student is arguing that an intervention by a criminal court judge had made his trial unfair and led to him being found guilty in 2019.
Liqhayiya Tuta was found guilty of stabbing the officers, who were in civilian clothes, as they tried to subdue him following a chase in the streets of Sunnyside, Pretoria, around midnight in 2018.
Tuta is appealing the life sentence he was given by the high court in Pretoria in 2019, arguing that he acted in self-defence and that at the time he was not aware that the men were policemen and mistook them for criminals trying to rob him.
The policemen, Const Kenneth Sithole and Const Lawrence Magalefa, were driving an unmarked red VW Polo vehicle as they were part of Operation Fiela which was targeting criminals in the Tshwane capital. Sithole died at the scene while Magalefa sustained serious injuries after being stabbed by Tuta.
Representing Tuta, Adv Tembeka Ngcukaitobi argued that an intervention by the trial judge which prevented Tuta's cross-examination had led to a trial irregularity that led to “an unsafe conviction”.
Ngcukaitobi argued that had the cross-examination by the defence not been interrupted by a trial judge it would have proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tuta acted in self-defence and that he had not been aware that the two men who had pinned him to the ground were police officers on duty.
“It is this intervention that resulted in a trial irregularity that vitiates a conviction because at this point in time it was never put squarely to the accused that he subjectively knew that the two gentlemen were police officers,” argued Ngcukaitobi.
Tuta's appeal has ended up in the apex court after the Pretoria high court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, including its judge president, dismissed his applications for an appeal.
Tuta's argument is that when he was confronted with danger at around 11pm in 2018, he felt entitled to defend himself.
Ngcukaitobi argued that the onus was on the state to prove Tuta's criminal intentions “including the subjective knowledge of the unlawfulness” of his actions.
He said that the conviction was wrong in law and was influenced by irregularities in the trial court, including not knowing the state's case or what evidence would determine this issue.
He also argued that Tuta's actions of presenting himself to police and furnishing them with his address the following day showed that he had no criminal intent.
Representing the state, Adv Alicia Roos argued that Tuta was subjected to a fair trial and that the aggravating circumstances of his actions that led to a police officer dying outweighed his self-defence case.
“If the counsel of the applicant wanted to elevate his complaint regarding the presiding officer, he had the opportunity and resources to approach the applicable authorities which he elected not to do,” said Roos.
Roos said Tuta's lack of remorse was considered by the trial court. “The court correctly considered the seriousness of the crime that was committed, the crime which is the murder of a South African police member is viewed to be of such a serious nature,” said Roos.
The Constitutional Court reserved judgment in the matter.