Mabaso v The State

In November 2013, the deceased, a SAPS constable, was shot and killed during a housebreaking and robbery at his home in Mpumalanga. Three men were involved. One co-accused (Mvubu) pleaded guilty and, in various statements, alleged that the appellant, Theresa Fortunate Mabaso, had hired them to murder the deceased because he had previously arrested her and impounded her vehicle. Another co-accused (Ngomane) made a confession implicating the appellant. At trial, Mvubu testified inconsistently, was declared a hostile witness, and denied that the appellant hired him. No other direct evidence linked the appellant to the murder. Despite this, the High Court convicted the appellant of murder.

The appeal was upheld. The appellant’s conviction for murder was set aside and replaced with an order acquitting her of the murder charge.

The case reinforces fundamental evidentiary principles in South African criminal law, particularly the inadmissibility of extra-curial confessions against co-accused persons and the limited use of prior inconsistent statements by hostile witnesses. It underscores the strict application of cautionary rules relating to accomplice and single-witness evidence and affirms the accused’s right to be convicted only on admissible and reliable evidence.