Publications
Partners
Judge Thokozile Masipa should not be crucified because she made mistakes in the Oscar Pistorius trial, according to Justice Minister Mike Masutha.
He was reacting to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s ruling on Thursday that Pistorius was guilty of murder.
Judge Eric Leach said in the appeal ruling that, in finding Pistorius guilty of manslaughter instead of murder, Masipa had made some mistakes.
Leach said Masipa understood certain legal principles incorrectly, and applied them incorrectly. He found her reasoning about whether Pistorius could have foreseen that Reeva Steenkamp was behind the toilet door “confusing”.
In an interview with Media24, Masutha said people should not condemn Masipa.
“I don’t think we should crucify the judge having got it wrong.
“Certainly many people were not happy at how she arrived at the decision and of course the decision itself.”
He would not give his personal opinion on the ruling, but said the case showed the world that South Africa’s judicial system is "in tact, it is credible, it is functional".
“What is important is that this has also opened a new avenue that has not been particularly used in the past.”
It has always been assumed that accused persons, when convicted, are likely to appeal. But it is rare – and hopefully it won’t much longer be rare in future – for the state or prosecution to note an appeal against a decision they are not happy with, said Masutha.
Another positive result of the Pistorius case was that ordinary South Africans understood the legal system better now because the trial was broadcast on television, Masutha said.
“The justice system is not for lawyers and ministers and journalists. The justice system is for the people and I’ve always lamented the fact that the people who the justice system is meant for hardly understand what is going on until they are themselves the subject of proceedings in court. Only then do they suddenly find themselves grappling with its intricacies.”
“Very often most people emerge with very little understanding of what happened except for what the verdict is.”
Masutha said the case was an “educative opportunity” for many South Africans.
“Even legal scholars had an opportunity to polish their knowledge and understanding of the courts.
“Suddenly everybody emerged as an expert. It [the case] was discussed in bars and everywhere.”
