THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No: 200/2015

In the matter between:

THEMBANI MABASO

APPELLANT

and

THE STATE

RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:    Mabaso v The State (200/2015) [2016] ZASCA 29 (23 March 2016)
Coram:
Leach and Zondi JJA and Fourie AJA
Heard:
2 March 2016
Delivered:
23 March 2016

Summary:  Pointing out by accused person in terms of s 218 of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977 ─ flagrant disregard of accused’s constitutional right to legal
representation ─ unlawful production of a confession in the guise of a pointing-out ─
handwritten notes of pointing-out not read back to accused ─ notes not constituting
admissible probative material ─ conviction and sentence set aside.

ORDER

On appeal from: KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg (Sishi J
sitting as court of first instance):
The appeal is upheld and the conviction and sentence imposed pursuant thereto are
set aside.
___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________

Fourie AJA (Leach and Zondi JJA concurring):
[1] The appellant, Thembani Mabaso, was indicted in the KwaZulu-Natal
Division, Pietermaritzburg, on a charge of murder. He pleaded not guilty to the
charge. In his written statement in terms of s 115(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977 (the CPA), he recorded that he had been interrogated and assaulted by
members of the South African Police Service, resulting in him making a formal
pointing-out to the police which was not done freely and voluntarily.

[2] At the commencement of the trial before Sishi J, the prosecutor informed the
court a quo as follows:
‘My lord, the only evidence that I have linking the accused to this offence is a pointing [out] to
which he refers, so we will have to proceed with a trial-within-a-trial when I get to the
evidence.’

[3] In the event, a trial-within-a-trial was held with several police officers and the
appellant testifying under oath. At issue was the admissibility of a pointing-out made
by the appellant to Captain E G van Rensburg (Van Rensburg) at Estcourt, KwaZulu-
Natal on 14 July 2005, during which the appellant made certain statements

amounting to a confession. At the conclusion of the trial-within-a-trial the pointing-out
evidence was ruled admissible and the main trial proceeded. The court a quo
subsequently convicted the appellant of murder, solely on the strength of the
utterances made by him during the course of the pointing-out.

[4] The trial court proceeded to sentence the appellant to imprisonment for life.
His application for leave to appeal was refused by the trial court but, on petition to
this court, he was granted leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence.

[5] It was common cause that the deceased had been murdered, having been
shot execution style while in his vehicle on the outskirts of Estcourt. There were no
witnesses to the murder, but some five months later a number of police officers,
members of the Serious and Violent Crime Unit at Cato Manor, arrived at the
appellant’s residence in Estcourt and arrested him on a count of murdering the
deceased. The appellant denied all knowledge of the murder, but was taken into
custody by the police who transported him to the Cato Manor Police Station, about
two hours away from Estcourt. The appellant travelled in a police vehicle with
Captain Dladla (Dladla), the arresting officer. According to Dladla the murder of the
deceased was not discussed at all during the journey. However, he testified that,
soon after their arrival at Cato Manor, the appellant suddenly indicated that he had
been involved in the murder of the deceased. According to Dladla he warned the
appellant that what he said amounted to a confession and therefore he was not
going to continue questioning him. Dladla then asked the appellant whether he would
be prepared to do a pointing-out in regard to the aspects that he had mentioned to
him. The appellant agreed.

[6] A strange feature of Dladla’s evidence was his failure to record the fact that
the appellant had allegedly given him this information. He said that his diary
contained a note to this effect, but he was unable to produce the diary. It is also
strange why, had the appellant provided Dladla with information regarding the
murder, which Dladla considered amounted to a confession, Dladla did not suggest

to the appellant that he should make a formal confession to a magistrate. He chose
rather to arrange a pointing-out by the appellant under the auspices of a member of
the police, Van Rensburg, stationed at the provincial headquarters in Durban. After
all, the purpose of a pointing-out under s 218(2) of the CPA is not to extract a
confession, but to obtain evidence of something pointed out by the accused or
discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused.

[7] Be that as it may, Van Rensburg conducted the pointing-out at Estcourt on 14
July 2005, with Inspector S C Zondo (Zondo) as the interpreter. A formal record of
the pointing-out was kept by Van Rensburg, which served as Exhibit E in the court a
quo. The document contains a number of prescribed questions to be put to the
person making the pointing-out and provides space for a written note of the actual
pointing out. At the outset, one asks why the appellant had developed this sudden
urge to do a pointing-out. The events following his arrest, as described by Dladla,
provide no indication why the appellant, after initially denying all knowledge of the
murder, would now wish to implicate himself by pointing out features related to the
murder. When the appellant was asked by Van Rensburg what was said to him by
the police when he was approached to do the pointing-out, he said that they had
asked if he can assist them with a pointing-out in the Estcourt area. This rather begs
the question as to why he had the sudden change of heart.

[8] Several entries made by Van Rensburg on Exhibit E tend to fuel one’s sense
of disquiet. Strangely enough, Van Rensburg not only recorded the date of the
pointing-out as 13 July 2005 (while it was 14 July 2005), but he also indicated that he
had met the appellant in person at the Estcourt Police Station, while it was in fact at
Cato Manor, whereafter they departed for Estcourt. Also, with regard to the right of
the appellant to consult a legal representative, the entries made by Van Rensburg
raise concern. When asked whether he wished to avail himself of legal
representation, the initial answer of the appellant was recorded as ‘N/A’ [not
applicable]. Then follows the following recordal by Van Rensburg:
‘Accused requests to speak to Mrs Mabaso at Estcourt Police Station to arrange money for
an attorney. But don’t want him now only for court.’

This indicates that the appellant wished to be assisted by a legal representative. It is
difficult to understand why he would have added that legal representation would only
be required at court. By all accounts the appellant is an intelligent person who was
on the brink of pointing out matters which could incriminate him, yet he refrains from
obtaining legal representation to protect his rights. I should add that, in his evidence,
the appellant reiterated that he wished to have immediate legal representation, but
that his request was refused.

[9] Exhibit E further records that the appellant was then asked whether he wished
to continue with the pointing-out. His answer is recorded as ‘yes’. However, the
following appears immediately thereafter:
‘[The] person requested again that he want to speak to Mrs Mabaso so that she knows that
he is arrested. Request was honoured.’
I should add that Mrs Mabaso is the sister-in-law of the appellant and that she is a
captain in the South African Police Service, stationed at Estcourt Police Station.

[10] It is alarming that Van Rensburg, well-knowing that the appellant wished to
contact Mrs Mabaso for the purpose of obtaining legal representation, then
proceeded with the pointing-out. Even more alarming, is the fact that the entry
‘request was honoured’ is incorrect. The entry conveys that the request to speak to
Mrs Mabaso was honoured at that point in time, however, it is common cause that
the appellant was only afforded an opportunity to speak to Mrs Mabaso after the
pointing-out had taken place. This amounted to a flagrant disregard of the appellant’s
constitutional right to legal representation.

[11] Van Rensburg kept handwritten notes of the pointing-out by the appellant.
The notes show that the appellant firstly pointed out a tuck shop where he and two
others drank some beer and then he pointed out another spot, saying ‘[h]ere the
mayor Mr Bhengu was shot’. Thereupon Van Rensburg asked him ‘who shot Mr
Bhengu?’ The appellant is recorded as answering ‘I did’. This constituted the
evidence upon which the appellant was found guilty of the murder of the deceased
(Mr Bhengu).

[12] As already mentioned, a pointing-out by an accused is regulated by s 218(2)
of the CPA. This subsection entitles the prosecution to adduce evidence of the
pointing-out by an accused notwithstanding that the pointing-out forms part of an
inadmissible confession. However, our courts have often warned that s 218(2) does
not authorise the production of a confession in the guise of a pointing-out. See S v
Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) at 743C; S v Magwaza 1985 (3) SA 29 (A) at 36 and Du
Toit et al Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act (loose-leaf) vol 2 at 24-67.

[13] In this court the State correctly conceded that the circumstances giving rise to
the pointing-out, as well as the manner in which Van Rensburg questioned the
appellant and obtained the damning answer from him, constituted a confession being
elicited from him. The issue then becomes whether evidence of either the pointing-
out itself, without regard being had to the appellant’s answer to the question he was
asked, or such answer was admissible.

[14] In the light of the failure of the police to allow the appellant to obtain legal
advice from his sister-in-law before the pointing-out, serious doubt must exist as to
whether either the pointing-out or the appellant’s utterance was admissible in the
light of his right to a fair trial guaranteed by s 35(3) of the Constitution. This is
particularly so as we know that the following day, after seeing his sister-in-law, the
appellant refused to make a formal confession when taken to another senior police
officer to do so. The inference is irresistible that this was due to the advice she had
given him and that, if he had seen her before the pointing-out, he would have
remained silent or not done the pointing-out at all. Bearing that in mind, it can hardly
be said that the admission into evidence of the confession at the pointing-out, made
only after the appellant had been denied legal assistance and questioned by Van
Rensburg, was not detrimental to the administration of justice.1 In these
circumstances both the pointing-out and the confession probably fell to be excluded
under s 35(5) of the Constitution.

1 Cf S v Mthembu 2008 (2) SACR 407 (SCA) paras 25-26.

[15] But no final decision on that issue needs be taken as it is not the sole difficulty
facing the State. In keeping the written notes of the pointing-out, Van Rensburg was
assisted by the interpreter, Zondo. When considering these notes it has to be borne
in mind that the ipsissima verba of the appellant, recorded in English, is the product
of a translation by Zondo from isiZulu to English. This includes the crucial part of the
notes, which records the appellant as stating that he had shot Mr Bhengu, the
deceased.  Van Rensburg testified that, upon the conclusion of the pointing-out, he
read the notes back to the appellant, with Zondo translating, and that the appellant
indicated that the notes were correct. Zondo, however, testified that they did not go
through the written notes with the appellant. When it was put to him that Van
Rensburg testified that he did read the notes back to the appellant with the
assistance of Zondo as the interpreter, the latter responded, ‘[n]o it never, it did not
happen’.

[16] If one has regard to the pointing-out record, and in particular questions 6, 7
and 8 dealing with the reading back of the pointing-out notes to the appellant, there
is no recordal of any reply to those questions by the appellant. This corroborates the
version of Zondo, namely that the handwritten notes of Van Rensburg were not read
back to the appellant. It follows that the appellant, who denied that he had made the
alleged incriminatory statements, at no stage confirmed the correctness of Van
Rensburg’s pointing-out notes. The result is that the handwritten notes of Van
Rensburg did not constitute admissible probative material. In fact, the notes
constituted no more than inadmissible hearsay statements. On this basis alone the
evidence of the confession allegedly made by the appellant ought not to have been
admitted.

[17] As the confession was the sole evidence against the appellant, and ought not
to have been admitted, he should not have been convicted. Therefore the appeal
must succeed.

[18] The following order is made:
The appeal is upheld and the conviction and sentence imposed pursuant thereto are
set aside.

________________________
P B FOURIE
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant:

C B Mann SC

Instructed by:

S P Mncwango and Associates, Durban

Ponoane and Associates, Bloemfontein

For Respondent:

D A Paver

Instructed by:

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Pietermaritzburg

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

23 March 2016

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Mabaso v The State (200/2015) [2016] ZASCA 29 (23 March 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal today upheld the appeal of the appellant who had been convicted of
murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the KwaZulu-Natal High Court. The SCA held that
there had been a flagrant disregard of the appellant’s constitutional right to legal representation, as
well as the unlawful production of a confession in the guise of a pointing-out by the appellant. Fatal to
the case of the State was the fact that the handwritten notes made by the police officer in control of
the pointing out, had not been read back to the accused. Therefore these notes did not constitute
admissible probative material. In the result the SCA set aside the conviction of murder and the
sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon the appellant.

--- ends ---