Justice ministry to study Waluś ruling
• Department spokesperson says Constitutional Court judgment ‘will be carefully considered’
The department of justice & correctional services says it has taken note of the Constitutional Court judgment on Janusz Waluś’s parole. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: “We have noted the judgment and will carefully consider it to ensure that we are fully enlightened.”
The department of justice and correctional services says it has taken note of the Constitutional Court judgment on Janusz Waluś’s parole.
Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: “We have noted the judgment and will carefully consider it to ensure that we are fully enlightened.”
Waluś has been serving a prison term for the 1993 murder of SACP leader Chris Hani. On Monday, in a unanimous decision, the apex court found that justice and correctional services minister Ronald Lamola’s 2020 decision to deny Waluś parole was irrational, and set it aside for review. The court ordered that Waluś be paroled within 10 days of the judgment.
Chief justice Raymond Zondo said: “A period of more than 15 years has lapsed since [Waluś] became eligible for consideration to be placed on parole. It was in 2005 that [he] became eligible to be considered for placement on parole.”
The history of Waluś’s applications for parole showed that the parole board had previously recommended he be paroled, but that it never came to be as justice ministers had always rejected his release.
“They can no longer stand in the way of [Waluś]. He has complied with every aspect, and the court finds it just and equitable that he should be released on parole,” Zondo said.
The judges noted the minister had accepted that Waluś had shown remorse, that during his imprisonment since 1993, he had had no negative disciplinary record, he had apologised several times and that his risk of reoffending were he to be placed on parole was low.
Opposing Waluś’s appeal, the minister, the SACP and Hani’s widow Limpho Hani contended the minister’s decision not to grant him parole was justified and rational. They said Waluś’s actions nearly plunged SA into civil war. Hani, who was in the public gallery, lashed out at the judgment, describing it as “diabolic”. She said karma would deal with the judges who had agreed that her husband’s killer should be paroled.
The decision to release Janusz Walus, the assassin of SACP leader Chris Hani, was always going to be controversial. But it has finally been made by the highest court in the land and we are all duty-bound to respect it and deal with its fallout.
On Monday, the Constitutional Court ruled that the assassin should be released on parole after serving a significant part of his life sentence behind bars. His co-conspirator, right-wing politician Clive Derby-Lewis, who ordered the hit on Hani, was freed years earlier and allowed to die in the company of his family.
Efforts to secure Waluś’s release over the years were resisted by the Hani family, the government, the law courts and the SACP. On Monday, however, his fortunes changed when the apex court set aside a 2020 decision by justice & correctional services minister Ronald Lamola to refuse the Polish immigrant parole.
This killer has been a divisive figure in South African politics, especially within the governing alliance.
First, it has never been clear that Walus disclosed everything about the plot and the assassination of Hani, and this has been a source of great discomfort to Hani’s family and comrades inside the alliance.
Second, it was never conclusively established that the two convicts acted alone.
Third, there has always been the worrying suspicion that the pair might have received assistance from Hani’s enemies inside the liberation movements and outside SA’s borders, especially those who feared Hani’s communist credentials after the end of apartheid.
Lastly and of greater concern, the use of a foreign national to execute the hit has added credence to all of the preceding theories.
Understandably, both the SACP and Hani’s wife Limpho are angry at the court’s ruling.
We too are disappointed. As well as the continued attacks on unarmed black South Africans by the apartheid security forces even after Nelson Mandela’s release from prison and the unbanning of the liberation movements in the early 1990s, Hani’s assassination nearly brought the country to full-blown civil war.
It took Mandela’s goodwill and leadership to stop the country from descending into chaos. It is against this background that his release has to be seen.
Limpho has cursed Raymond Zondo, the chief justice, after the court’s decision on Monday. Again, this is understandable, but it is unhelpful to frame the decision in personal terms.
While disappointed that this cold-blooded killer will be a free man in 10 days and that South Africans and the Hani family may never know the full truth and identity of other architects of Hani’s killing, this newspaper believes in the rule of law. The highest court in our land has pronounced itself loud and clear. We have to respect its judgment. We urge the law enforcement authorities to abide by the decision of the Constitutional Court.
We stand with the Hani family at this time. While the criminal matter has reached its conclusion, the Hani family still has civil remedies it can pursue against the murderer.
To help the country heal from the trauma of the assassination, including this week’s decision, we urge the law enforcement authorities to ensure that Walus, who was stripped of his SA citizenship five years ago, is deported to his country soon after his release.
While Mandela helped defuse the threat of a racial war in 1993, there is no guarantee that Walus’s release will not ignite violence, especially if he remains in the country.
Unfortunately, as we learned last July in the civil unrest that erupted after the incarceration of Jacob Zuma, we no longer have Mandela among us; and, more disturbing, we have produced no leaders who can defuse racially explosive situations as might be provoked by Walus’s release.
Finally, the deportation of Walus is no commentary on Polish people and their government. It is a condemnation of one sick individual who happens to be of Polish descent. His deportation should not be allowed to chill relations with Poland.
WHILE FREEING HANI'S MURDERER APPEARS TO BE DEEPLY UNJUST, WE SHOULD RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW AND ABIDE BY THE DECISION