Mojapelo v The State

The appellants, Ms Tinky Sophie Mojapelo and Ms Antoinette Mkhentsane Masuku, were convicted in the South Gauteng High Court of the murder of Mr Albert Mojapelo, the first appellant’s husband. The deceased was found shot dead next to his bakkie in September 2005. The State’s case rested almost entirely on the evidence of Mr Sakhele Malwane, an accomplice and single witness who testified under warning in terms of s 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. He alleged that the appellants conspired with Mr Orlando Mandoza to murder the deceased and that the murder was executed as a staged hijacking. Mr Mandoza absconded before trial. The trial court itself found Mr Malwane’s evidence to be bizarre, nonsensical and untruthful in material respects, particularly regarding his own involvement, yet accepted those parts implicating the appellants. No corroborating evidence linking the appellants to the murder or conspiracy was produced, and cellphone records contradicted aspects of Mr Malwane’s version. A statement allegedly made by the first appellant to the deceased’s sister while in custody was treated as incriminating. The appellants did not testify. Their convictions were confirmed on appeal by the full court, leading to a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The convictions and sentences of both appellants were set aside.

The case reinforces the stringent caution required when courts rely on accomplice evidence, particularly that of s 204 witnesses. It underscores that uncorroborated accomplice evidence, especially where the witness is found to be untruthful in material respects, cannot sustain a conviction. The judgment affirms that corroboration must implicate the accused and that an accused’s silence cannot compensate for fundamental weaknesses in the State’s case.