The court resumed and the prosecutor started with her questioning.

Mr Masingana, what is your position in your company, I mean your rank, and how did you accumulate your status?”

“I started working for the institution in 1989 after I studied in Sussex University in UK, and acquired a Doctorate in Weaponry and Warfare Equipment Manufacturing. When I left Armscor in 2004 I felt the need of a vacation and went around the world. Before I could come and work closer to my family.”

“You seem over qualified Mr Masingana. To have been assigned to such a minor case like this.”

“Objection your honour! My learned colleague has deviated from the objective of the person of the ballistic expert.”

“Objection overruled counsellor, you may proceed madam prosecutor.” The judge ruled.

“As I was saying, Mr Masingana, this case didn’t need to be handled by a person of your calibre. Why especially you?”

“It was the beginning of the year and most of my junior staff were already assigned to more serious cases. I then felt I should also make myself useful and not keep the case waiting for no good reason. Is there a law against that, if I may ask?”

“Not at all. As far as your understanding stretches, what is the reason for your being here?”

“It is to clarify to the court how fire-arms work, to enable it to come to an informed decisions.

“Thank you sir, hope that you shall indeed work towards fulfilling the said objectives as you understood it. I understand that the weapon in question was never powerful enough to have caused the target to fall back. But it still did not fall to either sides although according to the autopsy, the victim died as a result of the first if not the second shot. Can you explain to the house the reason for that?”

“I already have made it clear that, the deceased was charging towards the complainant, his body weight was also to the direction of the deceased. As the accused kept firing, the bullets kept the lifeless body upright. Only when the accused’s bullets were depleted did the late fall to the ground.”

“No further questions your honour.”

“Thank you counsellor. Thank you Mr Masingana, you can be excused sir.”

“This court shall adjourn till next week Wednesday, the 28th of November 2007, for the closing argument and the judgment.

***

Court resumed and Major was called on the stand.

“Your honour, the state would hereby wish to humbly bring to this honourable house’s attention to that Counter Crime Security is one of the companies with a high reputation. It has excellent service, high number of arrests and mostly, its unparalleled method of training its stuff and the use of modern technology to deliver optimum service. Mr Dladla is an employee of this company and is undoubtedly of the calibre befitting the said company. We would be making a huge mistake to think or believe that Mr Dladla was psychologically inefficient to deal with the situation spelled out to this court.

“That would be a total abortion of justice, and shall surely discourage the public to rely on our justice system for fair and equitable decisions. Mr Dladla suspected that there might be intruders in a truck. Instead of calling for backup when seeing the evidence satisfying his suspicions, he decided to single handedly tackle the situation. This behaviour rules out the so called extemporaneous reaction, as suggested by the learned psychologist. Mr Dladla attended the situation with a full intention to kill anyone found to be there. He emptied his fire arm on the poor, unarmed man and tarried in calling for medical attention. As it would hinder his intentions to see the poor-man dead. All his bullets ate on the upper body, which is a true reflexion of his intention.

“The state asks for a guilty verdict with a minimum, twenty years imprisonment for the accused, for the brutal murder of an un-armed intruder. He did not only use excessive force but also contravened the fire-arms control’s act 60 of 2000. All this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that his intention was to commit murder and nothing about self-defence as he puts it. The state thus believes that his honourable court shall act swiftly to remove such a callous person like the defendant from such an important position in our society. He displayed a total disregard for human life and is not only a danger to our society but also to the reputation of our security companies in the country. Thank you your honour.”

Max Chandler stood up for his closing argument.

“Your honour, I would like to refer to the signed confession of Mr Erick Maziya, who was alongside the deceased during the incident in question. I wish to quote in verbatim from thee said statement. ‘We decided to catch him by surprise by jumping out and disarming him of his fire-arm. My accomplice was in-front of me, and as we rushed towards him in the shadows of the trucks, he instructed him to his arms, or else we were going to shoot him.’ Close quote. I would like to put it to the attention of my learned friend’s attention that; should we disregard the weight carried by these words in the middle of the night, and suggest to the court that the accused should never had panicked, that shall be the actual abortion of justice for the accused.

“Those utterings carried a bearing of dangerous situation to the recipient and left him no choice but to act in defence. Here, the deceased have no one else to blame but him, for pulling such a fatal stunt to the accused. The place of the incident was poor in visibility and there was no time to inspect if indeed the intruders were armed as they claimed or not. My client had to be proactive in order for him to come out with his life intact.

“My learned friend suggests to the honourable house never to regard my client’s actions as self-defence. I wonder if she still recalls the difference between ‘self-defence’ and ‘attack’. It thus makes sense for my client to have taken the measures he took, which was to thwart the clearly eminent attack. Yes, he used excessive force, but what use would it be for defence to have stopped while the attack was still in progress? Elandsfontein and the surrounding industrial areas are notorious for brutal killings of guards during robberies and break-ins. My client was well aware of the danger he was facing, that he was up against people who do not have scruples to kill, as long as they can get what they want.

“We all understand that the most effective position where an assailant could be hit and immediately be disabled to continue the attack is from the shoulders to the arms. It would have been easy for my client to manage that if the target was motionless of maybe if it was daylight. The assailants were charging towards my client and he took desperate measures to save himself. I hope and pray for this court to unconditionally acquit my client on the basis that he was acting on self-defence and acted within the parameters of the law. Thank you your honour.”

“Thank you Mr Chandler. I now postpone this case to the sixth of December 2007, for judgment. This court is adjourned.”

*****

It was the Day of Judgment and the judge was ready to render the verdict. Major was called to the stand.

The court has made thorough consideration of all the evidence tabled before this house and has found that the defendant’s actions were in response to the currently pending aggressive action on his life. And that it would have been useless for the defendant to have stopped the defence if in his mind the attack was still in progress. The court thus finds his actions justifiable and thus uphold the defendant’s defence and acquits him on all the charges. The court can dismiss.”

The End

***

Tell us: What do you think of the verdict?