Mawanda Makhala and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape (CCT 237/22) [2024] ZACC 28; 2025 (1) SACR 275 (CC); 2025 (4) BCLR 399 (CC) (20 December 2024)

Mawanda Makhala and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape (CCT 237/22) [2024] ZACC 28; 2025 (1) SACR 275 (CC); 2025 (4) BCLR 399 (CC) (20 December 2024)

The Constitutional Court held that convictions based solely on recanted section 204 statements, without sufficient corroborating evidence, cannot be sustained. The statements made by Mr Luzuko Makhala were not hearsay because he testified and was available for cross-examination. However, his recantation and admission of lying to the police rendered the statements unreliable. The trial court erred in admitting the statements and convicting the applicants without adequate corroboration. The procedural safeguards necessary to ensure reliability, such as a trial-within-a-trial, were not followed, infringing the applicants' right to challenge and adduce evidence. The corroborative evidence...

Citation
[2024] ZACC 28
Parties
Applicant: Mawanda Makhala; Applicant: Velile Waxa; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Case Number
CCT 237/22
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before Constitutional Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Madlanga ADCJ, Bilchitz AJ, Chaskalson AJ, Dodson AJ, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Section 204 Witness, Hearsay Evidence, Fair Trial Rights, Recanted Statements, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Admissibility of Evidence Section 204 Witness Hearsay Evidence Fair Trial Rights Recanted Statements +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mawanda Makhala

Applicant

Velile Waxa

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court can convict an accused on the basis of a section 204 statement when the section 204 witness has recanted and there is no other incriminating evidence.
  2. 2 Whether such a statement is hearsay evidence if the section 204 witness is called to testify, and whether the Hearsay Act applies.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' fair trial rights under section 35 of the Constitution were violated by reliance on the recanted statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that convictions based solely on recanted section 204 statements, without sufficient corroborating evidence, cannot be sustained. The statements made by Mr Luzuko Makhala were not hearsay because he testified and was available for cross-examination. However, his recantation and admission of lying to the police rendered the statements unreliable. The trial court erred in admitting the statements and convicting the applicants without adequate corroboration. The procedural safeguards necessary to ensure reliability, such as a trial-within-a-trial, were not followed, infringing the applicants' right to challenge and adduce evidence. The corroborative evidence...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.