What Janusz Waluś did was heinous, but vilifying the Chief Justice and the Constitutional Court is wrong

Most people from my generation and older will remember that awful day when Chris Hani was murdered by Polish national Janusz Waluś. It was a moment that threatened to destabilise the country and plunge it into civil war.

I will never forget how my 11-year-old self felt scared and confused by what was happening as the normally unflappable, militant and committed adults around me, who had dedicated their lives to the liberation of the country along with Hani, despaired and expressed their anguish and grief. Until that day I had never seen my parents visibly shaken by anything.

So I understand what Hani meant to our country’s liberation; in fact, I am a direct beneficiary of his commitment. That is why, every year on 10 April, I reflect on his legacy, how cruelly and prematurely he was taken away, and what role he could have played in our imperfect democracy.

There is no question that what Waluś did was heinous, earning him a death sentence that was converted to a life sentence after the former was abolished. The grief of Hani’s widow, Limpho Hani, is completely justified and I have no sympathy for Waluś.

But vilifying Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and the Constitutional Court for granting Waluś parole is wrong and inflammatory, and displays a lack of understanding of our Constitution and legal system.

Our law says everyone is equal before it and the law is to be applied consistently; it cannot be individualised.

We must also not lose sight of the essence of the judgment, which is that Justice Minister Ronald Lamola’s decision to refuse Waluś parole was irrational and contradictory. In fact, the judgment reveals that Lamola is the one who listed factors in Waluś’s favour, such as remorse, a low chance of reoffending and a positive report from social workers.

So Lamola contradicted himself by denying Waluś parole in his clumsy rush to ensure that he never sees the light of day for political, and not legal, reasons. It was not the court that claimed Waluś was remorseful – Lamola made the case for this.

Read in Daily Maverick: “Our politicians and government are failing us, but we can find hope in community”

We cannot deny the intersection of law and politics in South Africa, where our political history inherently shaped our Constitution with its heart principles of equality, the rule of law, fairness and justice.

Speaking about Waluś’s parole, Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi said: “We feel betrayed, we feel let down and we can’t leave this unattended.” The question is by whom exactly does Lesufi feel “betrayed” and “let down”? It is dangerous and irresponsible, especially for someone occupying such a senior position in government, to try to whip up people’s emotions in this way.

In an article written by professor emeritus of public law Hugh Corder in which he addressed Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu’s utterances against the judiciary in January this year, he cautions: “Those who would destroy the rule of law and its enforcer, the judiciary, should ask themselves: to whom will I turn for protection if I find myself on the wrong side of political power?”

Corder rightly warns against arbitrarily besmirching judges and our Constitution without understanding the legal principles involved, and without providing a progressive alternative. DM168

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R25.