Outcry over ConCourt order to parole Chris Hani’s killer Janusz Walus

I think the statements made by those who oppose this judgement show clearly they are not capable of residing in a state where the rule of law is final. It's immoral that Walus has been kept behind bars for an additional 15 years because one woman is so filled with hatred, clearly she has not learnt anything. It so typical of people like this woman to have one set of rules for themselves and their friends and another set of rules for everyone else. Thank goodness we live in a country where the law prevails because otherwise people such as this would have dragged us into the mud.

Other than summarising the hyperbolic political commentary on the Constitutional Court's order, there is very little commentary in this piece on the substance of the judgment. What led the Court to its decision? The full Court unanimously found that the Minister's conduct (and that of his predecessors) in repeatedly refusing parole was irrational. Whilst Mr Walus' crime was shocking and deplorable, he has served 28 years in prison and is entitled to fair consideration of parole like any other inmate - the nature and seriousness of the crime will never change: "[82] ... if more than 26 years after the applicant was sentenced for the crime he committed, it was appropriate for the Minister not to release the applicant on parole in 2020 because of the nature of the crime, the seriousness thereof and the Court’s sentencing remarks, why would it be appropriate for the Minister to release him one or two or three or five years thereafter? These three factors are immutable. They will not change one or two or three or five years later. This the Minister has not explained, notwithstanding the fact that it cried out for an explanation because the applicant clearly put it in issue. Therefore, this Court must vitiate the Minister’s decision. If it were not to do so, it would in effect be giving its approval to the proposition that in future it would be appropriate for the Minister to deny the applicant parole even when he may have served 30 or 35 or even 40 years of imprisonment..."

Walus is a callous murderer who was convicted and sentenced under law. If those who so vituperatively object to his parole do not believe in equal, non-discriminatory rights for all, with constitutional government under the rule of law, what kind of South Africa do they want?

Vituperative, contemptuous, aggressive and legally ignorant - not a very dignified act from the widow? She has surely exacted enough vengeance by extending his sentence for so long through her endless advocacy and networking?

The fascists of the SACP have failed to listen to the eloquent legal judgement delivered by Chief Justice Zondo. What has been sickening is the fact that ANC Ministers of Justice who have been sued several times for the parole of murderers and rapists who have raped and murdered after their parole, have been making irrational political decisions to deny Walus parole. The legal illiterate called Solly Mapaila, was not listening on the sound legal basis that the Chief Justice made for the Constitutional Court to arrive at the decision that they have arrived at. Parole is part of the legal system of the country that fascist of the SACP and others of their ilk do not accept. For Limpho Hani to insult the Chief Justice it is unacceptable. Some of us who fought for freedom who took a decision never to make the struggle personal as we fought to free a country, a people and a nation and went to prisons for that several times and carry scars of the struggle, take umbrage that we are free because of Hani. We freed ourselves as the people of this country. We salute our heroes who paid a supreme sacrifice for the struggle. We must never diminish their role as Blade Nzimande a Johny come yesterday in the struggle as he was a Tongaat Hullet personnel manager and Inkatha member. As former freedom fighters, who have seen the blood of our comrades spilled in the theatre of war, we accept the Chief Justice Zondo's rationale and decision, and he has restored our humanity as we are civilised.

My personal preference is that murderers receive the death sentence or, in the absence of that, they are sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Hard labour would also be a plus factor. So on the level of my personal preferences and because I want to see that murderers are punished severely, Walus' sentence and refusal of parole ticks all my boxes. BUT that is not the system we have in this country. We do not have the death penalty, we do not have hard labour, our so called life sentence is probably 25 years, and almost everyone qualifies for parole after serving 30% to 40% of the original sentence. And Walus should have the same rules applied to him as are applied to all other murderers. No state official or political head should have the power to refuse the application of those rules simply because of the identity of the victim or because of any sense of cameraderie they may feel towards the victim. This is logical and self evident. I dont like it personally but then I dont like the fact that many other murderers and serious criminals are released on parole.