Making your own Country 'ungovernable!'

[Dave A]

This piece by Nic Dawes doesn't give much cause for optimism either.

[Citizen X]

This piece by Nic Dawes doesn't give much cause for optimism either.

Yes, it most certainly doesn't!

"It has happened to almost all the parties of uhuru – and it will happen here. Recent elections have begun to see the erosion of the ruling party's super-majority, and the near-daily uprisings we domesticate under the rubric of "service delivery protest" send a message that electoral choices are not yet capable of registering.
In the dust of the platinum belt we now have a stark illustration of how difficult, and how dangerous, this transition will be."

[wynn]

Aaah! you see, if you don't listen I will cut off your ears!!

[Dave A]

I guess I'm going to be called naive, but for a while there I didn't think it was going to work out that way. I really had expected the ANC would have learned from the lessons so obvious elsewhere.

[desA]

The patients are running the asylum.

[Citizen X]

The patients are running the asylum.

The Doctrine of common purpose: Unpacking a controversial matter!
Firstly, the legal definition of murder is extremely wide. One of the most wide definitions of a crime that actually exists in criminal law!
The definitional elements(which must be proved in court) of murder are:
(1) the causing of the death
(2) of another person,
(3) unlawfully
(4) intentionally[1]
The source of this definition is Prof Snyman.[2] The leading case on the doctrine of common purpose is Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A).
In this case the facts were the following: A crowd of about one hundred people attacked Y, who was in his house, by pelting the house with stones, hurling petrol bombs through the windows, catching him as he was fleeing from his burning house, stoning him, pouring petrol over him and setting him alight. The six appellants formed part of the crowd. The court found that their conduct consisted inter alia of grabbing hold of Y, wrestling with him, throwing stones at him, exhorting the crowd to kill him, forming part of the crowd which attacked
him, making petrol bombs, disarming him and setting his house alight.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Botha JA, the Appellate Division confirmed the six appellants' convictions of murder by applying the doctrine of common purpose, since it was clear that they all had had the common purpose to kill Y. It was argued on behalf of the accused that they could be convicted of murder only if a causal connection had been proved between each individual accused's conduct and Y's death, but the court held that where, as in this case, a common purpose to kill had been proved, each accused could be convicted of
murder without proof of a causal connection between each one's individual
conduct and Y's death. If there is no clear evidence that the participants had agreed beforehand to commit the crime together, the existence of a common purpose between a certain participant and the others may be proven by the fact that he actively associated
himself with the actions of the other members of the group.[3]
The existence of a common purpose between two or more participants is proved
in the following ways:
. On the basis of an express or implied prior agreement to commit an offence.
Since people mostly conspire in secret it is very difficult for the state to prove a
common purpose based on a prior agreement.
. Where no prior agreement can be proved, the liability arises from an active
association and participation in a common criminal design (Thebus 2003 (2)
SACR 319 (CC) 336).[4]
My thoughts, whilst the NPA can still charge anyone with this crime, whether a court finds such an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is quite another situation! The loss of life under any circumstances will always remain tragic. Protestors should learn that in a Constitutional democracy you can’t damage property, assault and intimidate non striking employees, block roads etc. They should protest peacefully. If you shoot at the police, you most certainly not protesting peacefully? Why were some miners armed? This concept of ‘human shield,’ comes to mind, a group of people agree to protest, a few takes guns( presumably unlicensed), the police arrive, they try to control the crowd, a few people in that crowd start shoting at the police, surely the police can’t still use water cannons! They should not return fire indiscriminately, they should ideally have sharp shooters who can take out the criminal elements of this crowd i.e. the ones shooting at police1 Just my 2 cents!

---

[1]Vide Criminal Law: Specific Crime Study Guide. Muckleneuk, Pretoria. University of South Africa. 2010.Page 131

[2]Vide Criminal Law. Cr Snyman. Lexis Nexus Butterworths. 2007. Page 421.

[3]Op Cit n 1. Page 11. Taken verbatim.

[4] Op Cit n 1 Page 9. Taken verbatim

[Citizen X]

According to Prof Snyman, there are 5 principles relating to the doctrine of common purpose:-
1. If two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act together in order to achieve that purpose, the conduct of each of them in the execution of that purpose is imputed to the others;
2. In a charge of having committed a crime which involves the causing of a certain result such as murder, the conduct imputed includes the causing of such result;
3. Conduct by a member of the group of persons having a common purpose which differs from the conduct envisaged in the said common purpose may not be imputed to another member of the group unless the latter knew that such other conduct would be committed, or foresaw the possibility that it might be committed and reconciled himself to that possibility
4. A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons in a common purpose is not dependant upon proof of a prior conspiracy. Such a finding may be inferred from the conduct of a person or persons;
5. A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons in a common purpose may be based upon the first mentioned persons active association in the execution of the common purpose. However, in a charge of murder this rule applies only if the active association took place while the deceased was still alive and before a mortal wound had been inflicted by the person or persons with whose conduct such first mentioned person associated himself;[1]
I submit, in my professional capacity as LAYMAN, that even if the NPA files these charges again, the court won’t find those miners guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt! Just my layman opinion!

---

[1] Vide CR Snyman: Criminal Law: Lexis Nexis Butterworths. 2008. Pgae 260