The appellant, Samson Shonisani Ralukukwe, was convicted in the Venda High Court of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances together with five co-accused. The offences arose from the fatal shooting and robbery of a mechanic on 16 November 1998. The appellant owned a security business and had met his co-accused the previous day. After the killing, some co-accused were arrested in possession of firearms linked to the murder. A key piece of evidence against the appellant was a post‑arrest statement made by accused 1 to a magistrate, implicating the appellant in a plan to commit robbery and in providing a firearm. Apart from this statement, the admissible evidence against the appellant consisted mainly of circumstantial facts such as hosting the co-accused, allegedly pointing out the deceased’s premises, and allegedly assisting some co-accused to hide after the crime.
The appeal was upheld. The appellant’s convictions and sentences for murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances were set aside.
The case is significant for reaffirming core principles of South African evidence and criminal procedure law, particularly that a confession by one accused is never admissible against a co-accused, and that hearsay admissions by a co-accused may only be used if properly and timeously admitted under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. It underscores the constitutional right to a fair trial and the requirement that inadmissible evidence must be completely excluded from consideration, even indirectly.