Masinga and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions (C of A (CRI) 11 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 28 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COUR T OF AP PE AL OF LE S OTH O C.o f A (CR I) N0 .1 1 / 2 0 1 1 1 S T AP PE LLANT 2 ND AP PE LLANT 3 R D AP PE LLANT 4 R D AP PE LLANT 5 TH AP PE LLANT 6 TH AP PE LLANT RESPONDENT HE LD AT MAS E R U In t h e m a t ter b etween : R OCKY MASINGA F R ANCIS CO MANDLATE MANGANI MALE NGE ANGE LO MONDLANI GE OR GE THOMAS ABE L NH ANTS ANE AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS COR AM: S COTT, J A HOWIE , J A FARLAM, J A 1 2 APRIL 2 0 1 2 HE AR D: DE LIVE R E D: 2 7 APRIL 2 0 1 2 S UMMA R Y Appellan ts e x trad ite d from S ou th Africa in te rm s of Extra d ition Tre a ty – appe llan ts a lle gin g th a t by re as on of certa in irre gu laritie s in S ou th Africa th e Le s oth o High Cou rt h a s n o ju ris d iction to try th e m – n o v iola tion of in te rn a tion al la w or a bu s e of th e proce s s – alle ged irre gu laritie s , in a n y eve n t, n ot e s ta blis h e d . J UDGME NT S COTT, J A [1 ] Th e a p p ella n t s fa ce t h ir ty-on e ch a r ges in t h e High Cou r t . Th es e in clu d e m u r d er , a tt em p t ed m u r d er , r ob b er y a n d k id n a p p in g. Th e offen ces wer e a lleged ly com m itt ed in t h e Kin gd om of Les ot h o. At t h e com m en cem en t of t h e tr ia l t h e a p p ella n ts r a is ed a s p ecia l p lea t h a t t h e cou r t la ck ed ju r is d iction . Th e p lea wa s fou n d ed on t h e a s s er tion t h a t t h ey h a d b een a r r es t ed in t h e Rep u b lic of S ou t h Afr ica wh er e t h ey h a d n ot b een a ffor d ed a fa ir h ea r in g b efor e t h e d ecis ion wa s t a k en to r etu r n t h em t o Les ot h o to s ta n d tr ia l. Th e cou r t a qu o h ea r d viva voce evid en ce a n d t h er ea fter d is m is s ed t h e s p ecia l p lea . [2 ] Th e Dir ector of Pu b lic Pr os ecu tion s , wh o a p p ea r s in t h es e p r oceed in gs , r efer r ed t o th e u n d es ir a b ility of a p p ea ls b ein g h ea r d p iecem ea l a n d con t en d ed t h a t t h er e wa s n o r ea s on wh y t h e is s u e b efor e u s s h ou ld b e r es olved p r ior t o t h e fin a liza tion of t h e cr im in a l tr ia l. He s u b m it ted t h a t t h e a p p ea l s h ou ld a ccor d in gly b e s tr u ck fr om t h e r oll. Th e a b s en ce of a cou r t’s ju r is d iction t o h ea r a m a t ter will vitia t e t h e p r oceed in gs . A d is m is s a l of a p lea t h a t t h e cou r t h a s n o ju r is d iction is t h er efor e a p p ea la b le. S ee Mo c h v Ne d t r a v e l (Pt y ) Lt d t / a Am e r ic a n E x p r e s s Tr a ve l Se r v ic e s 1 9 9 6 (3 )1 (A) a t 1 0 B – J . In t h e p r es en t ca s e t h e a p p ella n t s fa ce t h e p r os p ects of a len gt h y tr ia l. If t h eir p lea a ga in s t t h e ju r is d iction of t h e cou r t wer e to b e u p h eld , t h er e wou ld b e a con s id er a b le s a vin g of b ot h tim e a n d exp en s e. In t h es e cir cu m s ta n ces it s eem s to m e t h a t it wou ld b e fa ir t o b ot h p a r ties to h a ve t h e is s u e r es olved a t t h is s ta ge. [3 ] Th e fa ct s a r e s h or tly a s follows . Th er e is a n E xtr a d ition Tr ea ty b etween t h e gover n m en t s of t h e Rep u b lic of S ou t h Afr ica a n d t h e Kin gd om of Les ot h o. It wa s con clu d ed on 1 9 Ap r il 2 0 0 1 . At s om e s ta ge s h or tly a fter 2 2 Ap r il 2 0 0 9 , a n a p p lica tion wa s m a d e t o t h e S ou t h Afr ica n a u t h or ities for t h e p r ovis ion a l a r r es t of t h e a p p ella n ts wh o wer e b elieved to h a ve fled t o S ou t h Afr ica . Followin g t h eir a r r es t a s u b s t a n tive extr a d ition a p p lica tion wa s m a d e in ter m s of t h e tr ea t y for t h em t o b e s u r r en d er ed to Les ot h o. Th e a p p ella n ts a p p ea r ed in t h e Ma gis tr a t es ’ Cou r t , Bloem fon tein , for r em a n d on a n u m b er of occa s ion s . Th e h ea r in g even t u a lly com m en ced in t h e Bloem fon t ein Region a l Cou r t on 2 2 J u ly 2 0 1 0 . Th e p r oceed in gs wer e con clu d ed on 3 0 J u ly 2 0 1 0 wh e n t h e a p p ella n ts wer e fou n d lia b le t o b e s u r r en d er ed t o Les ot h o. Th ey wer e a ffor d ed lega l a id a n d wer e r ep r es en t ed a t t h e h ea r in g b y Ad voca te Nel. Th ey n ot ed a n a p p ea l wh ich wa s h ea r d in t h e High Cou r t , Bloem fon tein , on 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 . On 1 1 Feb r u a r y 2 0 1 1 t h e Cou r t h a n d ed d own ju d gm en t d is m is s in g t h e a p p ea l. On 1 5 Feb r u a r y 2 0 1 1 , wh en t h e a p p ella n ts a p p ea r ed in t h e Ma gis tr a tes ’ Cou r t t h ey wer e told of t h e d ecis ion of t h e High Cou r t a n d t h a t t h e m a tt er wa s b ein g r em a n d ed to 6 Ma y 2 0 1 1 p en d in g t h e fin a l d ecis ion of t h e Sou t h Afr ica n Min is t er of J u s tice a n d Con s tit u tion a l Develop m en t . Accor d in g to t h e fir s t a p p ella n t , wh o wa s t h e on ly a p p ella n t wh o ga ve evid en ce in t h e cou r t a qu o, h e t h er eu p on telep h on ed Ad v. Nel wh o h a d a ls o a r gu ed t h eir ca s e in t h e High Cou r t. He s a id t h a t t h ey d id n ot in s tr u ct Nel to n ot e a n a p p ea l t o th e S u p r em e Cou r t of Ap p ea l b u t m er ely r equ es t ed t h a t h e fu r n is h t h em wit h a cop y of t h e ju d gm en t , wh ich Nel d u ly d id . He s a id t h ey m a d e n o a t tem p t t o s eek lega l a id to p r os ecu te a fu r t h er a p p ea l. In s t ea d , t h ey m a d e con t a ct wit h t h eir fa m ilies a n d r equ es ted t h em to ob ta in t h e s er vices of a la wyer . He tes t ified t h a t on 1 3 Ma r ch t h ey con s u lted wit h Mr Pa u l S h a p ir o wh o wa s a la wyer . Th ey in s tr u cted S h a p ir o to n ot e a n a p p ea l. Th e la tter in d ica t ed t h a t h e wou ld con s u lt wit h t h em fu r t h er on 6 Ma y 2 0 1 1 a t t h eir n ext a p p ea r a n ce in cou r t. However , a n a p p ea l wa s n ot n ot ed a n d on 1 9 Ap r il t h e a p p ella n ts wer e r em oved fr om p r is on a n d t a k en to t h e b or d er a t t h e Ma s er u Br id ge wh er e t h ey wer e h a n d ed over to t h e Les ot h o a u t h or it ies . Th e fir s t a p p ella n t s a id t h a t h e s u b s equ en tly lea r n ed t h a t on 6 Ap r il 2 0 1 1 t h e Min is ter h a d s ign ed a n execu tive or d er d ir ectin g t h a t t h ey b e s u r r en d er ed t o t h e p er s on s a u t h or ized b y t h e Kin gd om of Les ot h o t o r eceive t h em . [4 ] In t h is cou r t Mr . Ph oofolo, wh o a p p ea r ed for t h e a p p ella n ts , s u b m it ted t h a t b y r ea s on of wh a t h e con ten d ed wa s a d is r ega r d of t h e r igh ts of t h e a p p ella n ts b y t h e S ou t h Afr ica n a u t h or ities , t h e cou r t a qu o h a d er r ed in fin d in g t h a t it h a d ju r is d iction t o tr y t h em . Th e r igh t s of t h e a p p ella n ts wh ich h e con t en d ed wer e d en ied th em wer e (a ) t h e r igh t t o a p p ea l t h e d ecis ion of t h e High Cou r t, Bloem fon tein , a n d (b ) t h e r igh t t o m a k e r ep r es en t a tion s t o t h e Min is t er b efor e h e s ign ed t h e execu tive or d er d ir ectin g t h a t t h ey b e r et u r n ed to Les ot h o. [5 ] In S v E br a h im 1 9 9 1 (2 ) SA 5 5 3 (A) t h e a p p ella n t, a m em b er of a b a n n ed or ga n is a tion , wh o h a d fled Sou t h Afr ica wh ile u n d er a r es tr iction or d er , h a d b een a b d u cted fr om h is h om e in Mb a b a n e, Swa zila n d , b y p er s on s a ctin g a s a gen ts for t h e S ou t h Afr ica n S ta te a n d h a n d ed over to t h e p olice in S ou t h Afr ica wh er e h e wa s p r os ecu ted for tr ea s on . He a p p lied for a n or d er d ecla r in g t h a t t h e cou r t la ck ed ju r is d iction t o tr y t h e ca s e in a s m u ch a s h is a b d u ction wa s in b r ea ch of in t er n a tion a l la w a n d t h er efor e illega l. Th e a p p lica tion wa s d is m is s ed b u t t h e a p p ea l u p h eld on t h e gr ou n d in ter a lia t h a t t h er e h a d b een a n a b u s e of t h e p r oces s , t h a t t h e d ign ity a n d in tegr ity of t h e ju d icia l s ys tem h a d to b e p r ot ect ed a n d t h a t t h e S ta te h a d to com e t o cou r t wit h clea n h a n d s . [6 ] Th e fa cts in Be n n e t t v H o r s e fe r r y R o a d Ma gis t r a t e s ’ Co u r t a n d An o t h e r [1 9 9 3 ] 3 All E R 1 3 8 (H L) wer e s im ila r . In t h a t ca s e Ben n et t , a New Zea la n d citizen , wa s wa n ted for a cr im in a l offen ce a lleged ly com m it ted in E n gla n d . He wa s tr a ced b y t h e E n glis h p olice to S ou t h Afr ica . Th e E n glis h p olice d ecid ed n ot to em p loy t h e extr a d ition p r oces s a n d in s tea d to collu d e wit h t h e S ou t h Afr ica n p olice t o h a ve Ben n et t a r r es ted in S ou t h Afr ica a n d for cib ly r etu r n ed t o E n gla n d a ga in s t h is will. He wa s a r r e s t ed b y two Sou t h Afr ica n d etectives a n d p la ced on a n a er op la n e in J oh a n n es b u r g, os ten s ib ly to b e d ep or ted t o New Zea la n d via Ta ip ei. Wh en h e a tt em p t ed to d is em b a r k h e wa s r es tr a in ed b y t wo m en wh o id en tified t h em s elves a s S ou t h Afr ica n p olicem en a n d wh o r etu r n ed h im to Sou t h Afr ica wh er e h e wa s h eld in cu s t od y u n til h e wa s p la ced , h a n d cu ffed t o a s ea t , on a fligh t b ou n d for E n gla n d . On a r r iva l a t Hea t h r ow a ir p or t h e wa s a r r es t ed b y E n glis h p olice officer s , a n d s u b s equ en tly tr ied a n d con victed . Th e Divis ion a l Cou r t h eld t h a t it h a d n o ju r is d iction to in qu ir e in to t h e cir cu m s ta n ces b y wh ich Ben n et t ca m e t o b e in t h e ju r is d iction a n d a ccor d in gly d is m is s ed h is a p p lica tion for ju d icia l r eview. On a p p ea l t o th e Hou s e of Lor d s , it wa s h eld , Lor d Oliver d is s en t in g, t h a t it wa s a n a b u s e of t h e p r oces s for a p er s on t o b e for cib ly b r ou gh t wit h in t h e ju r is d iction in d is r ega r d of a va ila b le extr a d ition p r oced u r es a n d t h a t s u ch con d u ct a m ou n t ed t o a viola tion of in ter n a tion a l la w a n d t h e la ws of t h e s ta te fr om wh ich t h e p er s on h a d b een a b d u ct ed . Th e a p p ea l wa s a ccor d in gly a llowed . [7 ] Th e p r es en t ca s e is tota lly d is tin gu is h a b le fr om t h e two d es cr ib ed a b ove. Th e a p p ella n ts wer e r et u r n ed to Les ot h o in a ccor d a n ce wit h a n extr a d ition p r oced u r e r egu la ted b y tr ea ty. Th er e wa s n o viola tion of in ter n a tion a l la w, n or wa s t h er e a n a b u s e of t h e p r oces s . Th e Les ot h o S ta te com es t o cou r t, t o u s e S teyn J A’s p h r a s e in t h e E b r a h im ca s e “wit h clea n h a n d s ”. In t h es e cir cu m s ta n ces , I ca n s ee n o ju s tifica tion for a ch a llen ge t o t h e ju r is d iction of t h e Les ot h o Cou r t on t h e gr ou n d s of a n a lleged ir r egu la r ity in t h e r equ es ted S ta te’s d ecis ion t o s u r r en d er t h e a p p ella n ts t o Les ot h o. In t h e Scottis h ca s e of S in c la ir v H M Ad v o c a t e (1 8 9 0 ) 1 7 R (J ) 3 8 Lo r d M’La r e n s ta ted t h e p os it ion a s follows (4 3 -4 4 ): “Th e ex tra d ition of a fu gitiv e is an act of s overe ign ty on th e p a rt of th e s ta te w h o s u rren d ers h im . Each cou n try h a s its ow n id e a s an d ow n ru le s in s u ch m a tte rs . Ge n e rally it is d on e u n d e r tre a ty arra n ge m e n ts , b u t if a s ta te refu s e s to b in d its elf by tre a ty , an d prefers to d e al w ith e ach cas e on its m e rits , w e m u s t be con te n t to rece iv e th e fu gitiv e on th e s e con d ition s an d w e h av e n e ith e r title n or in te re s t to in qu ire in to th e regu larity of th e procee d in gs u n d e r w h ich h e is a ppre h e n d e d an d giv en over to th e official s e n t ou t to rece iv e h im in to cu s tod y … ..” Th is s ta tem en t h a s s in ce b een qu ot ed wit h a p p r ova l on n u m er ou s occa s ion s (See for exa m p le S v Be a h a n 1 9 9 2 (1 ) SACR 3 0 7 (ZS ) a t 3 1 8 j-3 1 9 c . S ee a ls o O’H iggin s “Un la wfu l Se iz u r e a n d Ir r e gu la r E x t r a d it io n s ” 1 9 6 0 Br it is h Ye a r bo o k o f In t e r n a t io n a l La w a t 3 1 7 ). In s om e in s ta n ces t h e ju d gm en ts in qu es tion h a ve b een over r u led , b u t I k n ow of n o ca s e wh er e t h e cor r ect n es s of Lor d M’La r en ’s s ta tem en t h a s b een ch a llen ged . In d eed , it wou ld s eem clea r t h a t in ter n a tion a l la w, a s op p os ed t o t h e m u n icip a l la w of t h e r equ es ted s ta te, d oes n ot r equ ir e t h e r equ es t ed s t a t e to gr a n t extr a d ition on ly a ft er r egu la r ju d icia l or a d m in is tr a tive p r oceed in gs . See F e lic e Mo r ge n s t e r n 1 9 5 2 Ye a r b o o k o f In t e r n a t io n a l La w 2 6 5 a t 2 7 1 . [8 ] On t h e fa cts of t h e p r es en t ca s e t h e cr iticis m s levelled a t p r oceed in gs in S ou t h Afr ica a r e, in m y view, in a n y even t wit h ou t s u b s ta n ce. Th e d ecis ion of t h e High Cou r t wa s m a d e k n own to t h e a p p ella n t s wit h in fou r d a ys of it s b ein g h a n d ed d own . Th ey d id n ot in s tr u ct Ad v. Nel to n ote a n a p p ea l, n or d id t h ey s eek lega l a id for t h is p u r p os e. Accor d in g t o t h e fir s t Ap p ella n t t h ey con s u lted wit h t h eir own la wyer on 1 3 Ma r ch 2 0 1 1 wh en h e wa s in s tr u cted t o n ot e a n a p p ea l, b u t h e a p p a r en tly fa iled t o d o s o. If t h ey a r e a ggr ieved b y h is fa ilu r e to ca r r y ou t h is in s tr u ction s , t h eir r em ed y m u s t lie a ga in s t h im . Th ey ca n h a ve n o com p la in t a ga in s t t h e lega l p r oces s . It is n eces s a r y to m en tion t h a t wh en it wa s p oin t ed ou t to t h e a p p ella n t in t h e cou r s e of b ein g cr os s -exa m in ed t h a t h is la wyer h a d h a d a m p le tim e t o n ot e a n a p p ea l, h e s u gges ted for t h e fir s t tim e t h a t h e “cou ld h a ve m a d e m is t a k e” b y s a yin g 1 3 Ma r ch in s tea d of 1 3 Ap r il. Bu t t h e la tt er d a te wa s con tr a r y to t h e wh ole ten or of h is evid en ce a n d ca n b e ign or ed . [9 ] As fa r a s t h e fa ilu r e t o m a k e r ep r es en ta tion s t o t h e Min is ter is con cer n ed , it is clea r t h a t a s ea r ly a s 1 5 Feb r u a r y 2 0 1 1 t h e a p p ella n t s wer e t old t h a t t h e fin a l d ecis ion la y wit h t h e Min is t er . Th er e wa s n ot h in g to p r even t t h em fr om m a k in g wr itt en r ep r es en t a tion s t o h im , n or wa s t h er e evid en ce t h a t it wa s t h eir in ten tion t o m a k e s u ch r ep r es en t a tion s . Th eir fa ilu r e t o d o s o wa s t h eir own d oin g. [1 0 ] Th e a p p ea l is a ccor d in gly d is m is s ed . __________________________ D. G. SCOTT Justice of Appeal I a gr ee: __________________________ C. T. HOWIE J u s tice of Ap p ea l I a gr ee: __________________________ I. G. F AR LAM J u s tice of Ap p ea l F o r t h e Ap p e lla n t s : Mr . E . H. Ph oofolo F o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t : Ad v. L. L. Th ets a n e KC a s s is t ed b y Ad v. L. Mofilik oa n e a n d M. E . Ts ’oeu n ya n e 15