Christmas at home for widow accused
But high court judge sets stringent conditions
THE widow of slain senior Bhisho official Sakhekile Ndudula looks set to celebrate Christmas at home after the Grahamstown High Court granted her R20 000 bail.
The high court set aside the East London Magistrate’s Court decision to deny Bulelwa Ndudula, 44, bail.
However, Judge Fatima Dawood set strict conditions.
Ndudula will have to report to the Cambridge Police Station once a day, may not communicate, intimidate or threaten any of the witnesses, may not leave the East London magisterial district and has to be at her Cambridge home between 8pm and 6am.
She stands accused of shooting her husband seven times in their Cambridge home in September.
Police suggested at her bail hearing that jealousy had been the motive.
East London magistrate Nazeem Joemath had ruled it was not in the interest of society for Ndudula to be released on bail. He found that the forensic evidence suggested Ndudula had primary gunshot residue on her hands and clothing, which was indicative of her having pulled the trigger.
He found the crime of which she was accused was a schedule six crime, implying premeditation, and it required her to show exceptional circumstances to support her release. He ruled she had failed to do so. But Judge Dawood disagreed. She said there was currently not enough evidence to suggest the crime was premediated and the presence of gunshot residue found on Ndudula could have an innocent explanation.
She said the investigating officer had conceded that residue could be deposited when a person comes into contact with a victim in such circumstances.
Although he had indicated that the chances of this were “not good” he had also conceded he was not an expert in the field.
For purposes of bail, Dawood downgraded it to a schedule five offence, which required only that she should satisfy the court that her release was in the interest of justice.
She said the police could not deny Ndudula’s contention that she lived at a fixed address, was gainfully employed as a teacher, had dependents relying on her, had financial obligations she had to meet, that she was not a flight risk, and that she had no pending cases or previous convictions.
She said there was also no evidence to suggest that she would interfere with evidence or threaten witnesses.