By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Chris Hani’s killer Janusz Waluś was back in the courts on Tuesday to get another shot at parole.
He’s challenging Justice and Correctional Services Minister Ronald Lamola’s decision to deny his release in the Constitutional Court.
The Polish immigrant is serving a life sentence for killing the South African Communist Party (SACP) leader outside his Boksburg home in 1993.
He approached the Constitutional Court to review Lamola’s decision on 16 March 2020 not to approve his release on parole.
On Monday, Walus’ advocate, Roelof du Plessis, argued in the apex court ministers were political appointees placed in their positions by the ANC, who is an alliance partner of the SACP, and “it simply makes it difficult for any minister to make this decision”.
But Lamola’s advocate, MTK Moerane SC, said there was no merit in that submission.
“The minister stated under oath that he did not consult his political comrades and that he took the decision in his capacity as the minister of justice and correctional services.
“We submit that that particular view point is incorrect, and their submission is therefore without merit. The fact that he is a politician is neither here nor there,” he added.
Walus first became eligible for parole in 2005 after serving 13 years and four months of his life sentence.
Justice Leona Theron asked why Lamola, in his reasons, did not mention the length that Walus had spent in prison and what the court should make of that.
Responding, Moerane said Lamola was aware of the length Walus had spent in prison and it was not “necessary” for him to mention it.
Theron also questioned why Lamola had not listed he took the period of incarceration Walus had served as a positive factor in his favour.
Moerane said that factor was “so obvious”, and Lamola did not have to mention it.
He also faced questions from Justice David Unterhalter, who asked if the advocate “accepted” the proposition that a person serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole would suffer unconstitutional punishment.
“We accept that,” Moerane said.
Unterhalter then added: “That would seem then logically to imply, that at a point, even the most heinous crime, the retribution factor has been served … the question is, when is that point reached in the case of the applicant? Isn’t he entitled to know when that point is reached?”
Meanwhile, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane – who is representing the SACP and Hani’s wife, Limpho – argued the nature of the crime committed by Walus was not “merely a murder of an individual”.
“It was a murder of a democratic dream,” he said.
Sikhakhane added the minister was correct on rationality, saying the apex court was not in a better position to substitute the decision.
Judgement is reserved.