Late Lawyer Thulani’s wife accused of
MBABANE – The wife of slain Human Rights Lawyer Thulani Maseko has been accused of refusing to release her husband’s two cellphones to investigators.
The two cellphones, according to the Crown, potentially hold key information on Thulani’s killers. Tanele Maseko has also been accused of not being co-operative in the investigation of the shooting of her husband.
The police also alleged that Tanele was refusing to bring Thulani’s children to be interviewed by investigators. According to the police, the children are competent and compellable witnesses.
They alleged that she had turned the investigation into a political fiasco by allegedly bringing people carrying placards to the Manzini Regional Police Headquarters.
This, according to the police, results in the harassment of investigators ‘who have not rested since the death of the lawyer, yet everyone, inclusive of the international community, want to know who killed the late Mr Thulani Maseko’.
Violation
Tanele was further accused of coming to the police station with known non-practising lawyers but claimed that they were her attorneys, which is a direct violation of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1964.
These allegations are contained in a notice to raise points of law in the matter in which Tanele filed an urgent application at the High Court yesterday for the police to release her cellphone to her possession. The cellphone in question is a Huawei P30 model.
Tanele is also seeking an order that the national commissioner of police be ordered to provide a report or statement detailing what, if any actions were taken to view, download, save or alter in any way or form any item, setting or ordinary function whatsoever of her cellphone.
Tanele submitted that her cellphone contained private information, including images of her private family and life, as well as passwords for financial transactions that she needed for the upkeep of her family. She said it also contained information on her engagements with third parties linked to the survival and upkeep of her family.
Restrictions
She further prayed that the national commissioner of police be ordered to remove any restrictions whatsoever associated with her travel documents, restoring her ability to travel freely, both in and outside Eswatini.
Tanele also applied to the court to be allowed to be represented by an attorney of her choice during any proceedings or any interview by the police.
The police, however, said in the notice to raise points of law, Section 21 of the Constitution was not applicable when the police were conducting an investigation; meaning that lawyers need not be present unless the person being investigated feared that the police had incriminating evidence against them.
Alternatively, she wants the national commissioner of police to accept a written statement submitted by her legal representatives as constituting her witness statement to the case of the cold-blooded murder of her husband.
Thulani was killed on January 21, 2023, at his homestead at KaLuhleko in Bhunya. He was shot by unknown people, while he was watching television with his wife and children in one of his houses. To date, his killers have not been captured.
Thulani’s murder has attracted the attention of the international community, which has been calling for a thorough investigation into the murder.
Yesterday, the matter was before Judge John Magagula. Tanele is represented by Human Rights Lawyer Sibusiso Nhlabatsi. The national commissioner of police is represented by Assistant Attorney General Mbuso Simelane. Other respondents are the director of public prosecutions (DPP) and the attorney general (AG).
Possession
Nhlabatsi told the court that Tanele withdrew the prayer for her cellphone to be released to her possession.
This was after it transpired that the police had since released the cellphone to Tanele. Nhlabatsi said the cellphone was given back to Tanele around 1:40pm yesterday, which was an hour after the court application had been filed.
The return of the cellphone, according to Nhlabatsi, meant that the urgency of the matter had been defeated. He agreed with Simelane that the application should take its normal course as the urgency had fallen away.
The assistant AG, Simelane, had argued that if the prayer on the release of the cellphone back to Tanele would no longer be pursued, the urgency of the matter was defeated.
Simelane directed the court to the part of Tanele’s founding affidavit, where she argued the urgency of the matter.
Tanele argued that the matter was urgent on the basis that her cellphone was allegedly unlawfully seized and despite requests by herself and her lawyers, the police officers refused to release it.
“This deprivation of my property is unconstitutional as it impedes on my rights to privacy and dignity and my right not to be unlawfully deprived of my private property.
“It is urgent that my fundamental rights and freedom be protected. Since the cellphone was seized unlawfully and seeing that cellphones have become an inalienable part of everyday life, no other remedy is available for me but an urgent relief,” argued Tanele.
She also told the court that the alleged constitutional violations were ongoing as the police remained in possession of the cellphone as of the time of swearing of her founding affidavit.
Meeting
She also argued that, as the police were allegedly insisting on meeting her within short timelines, which she was not opposed to, their conduct explained made her insist on her right to legal representation at all times during any interface with them.
“That the previous contact with the police on March 27 and 28, 2024, was hostile and that the police were refusing me to have lawyers of my choice during the brief interface and went ahead to confiscate my assets without a warrant or court order, has reaffirmed the need for me to have legal representation of my choice.
“It stands to logic therefore that an order compelling the police to allow lawyers of my choice to represent me during my meeting with them is both urgent and important and fundamental to protecting my rights and the right to fair trial and justice,” she added.
She said on account of these factors, ‘I respectfully submit that this matter is urgent’.
Judge Magagula removed the matter from the court roll and it is to take its normal course.