Times Of Swaziland: SIPHO SHONGWE LOSES EXTRADITION CASE

SIPHO SHONGWE LOSES EXTRADITION CASE
================================================================================
 BY SIBUSISO ZWANE on 30/06/2020 23:56:00


MANZINI - It is final, the court has ruled that Sipho Shongwe must be extradited
to South Africa, but this will be after his murder case in Eswatini has been
finalised.
This is according to the ruling issued by Manzini Principal Magistrate David
Khumalo concerning the extradition application, which was filed by the South
African Government.
Khumalo said according to the extradition application filed in 2018, the SA
Government wanted Shongwe to face charges of escaping from Barberton Maximum
Prison, absconding sentence, forgery and uttering. He said the respondent was
also wanted to complete his outstanding sentence in the neighbouring country.
When issuing the judgment, the court said: “The respondent (Sipho) must go
back (to SA) to serve his outstanding sentence and answer to the escaping,
forgery and uttering charges.”
Surrendered
The principal magistrate said after being surrendered to South Africa, he
(Shongwe) would be at the disposal of the Case Management Committee (CMC), which
would calculate how long his outstanding sentence was.
“So, the extradition application succeeds, but the surrendering of the
respondent (Shongwe) shall not be effected until his pending case in the
requested State is finalised,” the court said.
The requested State in this context is the Kingdom of Eswatini and Shongwe is
facing a murder charge, whereby he is accused of having a hand in the death of
businessman and football administrator Victor Gamedze. The businessman was shot
dead on January 14, 2018 at Galp Filling Station in Ezulwini.
The court added that if Shongwe would be acquitted and discharged in the matter,
Prime Minister Ambrose Dlamini would, as per the law, surrender him to the
requesting State (South Africa).
However, the court said if Shongwe would be found guilty in the murder charge
and gets convicted and sentenced, he would have to serve his jail time before he
could be surrendered to South Africa.
Unlawful
The court said in its findings, the respondent escaped from a South African
prison as he was aware that his liberation was unlawful. It said whosoever
orchestrated the forgoing and uttering of his release documents (liberation
warrant and court order), did this on behalf of Shongwe. It said this was
because Shongwe’s conduct, after he was erroneously released from Barberton
Maximum Prison, pointed in that direction.
The court said when Shongwe was erroneously released from prison, he was freed
using documents which were a subject matter in the extradition case. It said
Pretoria High Court Senior Registrar Clerk, Ketsile Matshidiso Ramadwa, was one
of the key witnesses regarding this issue.
It said in her testimony, she said she was the one responsible for issuing out
liberation warrants at Pretoria High Court and disowned the two documents used
to release Shongwe from prison.
In fact, the court said Ramadwa mentioned that the documents did not originate
from her court.
“She concluded that the liberation warrant and court order were forged,” the
court said.
Again, the court said Eric Mokoena, who is a Record Supervisor at Barberton
Maximum Prison, acknowledged that in 2009, they discovered that there were a lot
of irregularities about Shongwe’s release documents. He said they found that
he was released using forged documents and admitted that they made an error in
that regard.
Therefore, the court said the question was if Shongwe was part of the forging
and uttering of the documents. It said it was noted that the release documents
were faxed from outside prison.
Erroneous
However, the court also mentioned that by the time of his erroneous release, the
respondent had already exhausted all available legal avenues to secure his
freedom. It said he made attempts to overturn his conviction at the Supreme
Court and Constitutional Court in the neighbouring country. The court said
unfortunately, all his requests to overturn his conviction and sentences were
unsuccessful.
On the other hand, the court said the respondent told it that there was no crime
for walking out of prison when being released. However, it said its question was
what came to his mind when he was told about his release. It said this question
arose  from the fact that he had already exhausted all legal channels to gain
freedom, but failed.
In that regard, the court said the prosecution argued that whosoever forged the
documents, did it for the respondent and might have got instructions from him,
thus they might have common purpose of committing the crimes.
“The prosecution argued that Shongwe knew very well that he was not supposed
to be released from jail, but he decided to walk out when he was told that he
was a free man,” the court said.
Again, it said after he was erroneously released, he made sure that he evaded
being detected by the South African Immigration system. It said evidence brought
to the court was that he did this by not stamping his passport on the South
African side whenever he was going in and out of the neighbouring country.
However, it said he used to stamp his passport when using OR Tambo International
Airport. In that regard, the court said Shongwe seemed to have done his homework
because he knew that when a flagged person was in the transit area at the
airport, he could not be detected.  Again, the court said, when he was going to
Mozambique, he would stamp his passport on both the Eswatini and Mozambican
side.
“So, the question is why he evaded all the other ports of SA by not stamping
his passport. This shows that he was aware that his unlawful release from prison
was tantamount to escaping and absconding sentence,” the court said.
Once more, regarding the issue of an outstanding sentence, the court said
Shongwe had two life imprisonment sentences and in terms of the law, he was
supposed to serve at least 20 years before being considered for parole.
Remaining
It said by the time of his erroneous release, it was submitted that he had
served between seven or eight years and there were about 12 years remaining.
However, the court said the respondent’s contention was that between 2017 and
2018, one of his co-accused, Ernest Shandu, was released on parole. In response,
the court said Mokoena explained that sometimes the CMC amended the parole
terms.
Again, the court said Shandu was released several years after Shongwe was
erroneously freed. It added that the fact that Shandu was released between 2017
and 2018, did not mean that the respondent finished serving his sentence. It
said this was because he was released far earlier than Shandu.
The court said it did not have a duty to say the exact remaining sentence of
Shongwe. However, it emphasised that when he was released, he was still serving,
which proved that he had not completed the sentence.
It said his jail time, which he was supposed to serve, was disrupted by the
forged release documents. It said if the documents were not forged and uttered,
Shongwe would have remained in jail until the CMC considered him for parole.