Had to apply it
This was a deliberate, indiscriminate attack on the civilian population.”
Nor were there any extenuating circumstances to warrant sparing him the death sentence, the judge found. Zondo’s age was “a factor” but not a “compelling one”. His socioeconomic status was acknowledged, with Leon saying: “The monopoly of political power and its fruits is in the hands of the white section of the population, while the black section in general is less affluent, less well-off and has few amenities of life.” Acknowledged also was his life experience (witnessing the killing of children by the police in 1982 and his own arrest “for no valid grounds”). But they were not persuasive to the judge. Nor was his remorse for the loss of life and his apology.
“On Count 1 you are sentenced to death. On Count 2 you are sentenced to death. On Count 3 you are sentenced to death. On Count 4 you are sentenced to death, and on Count 5 you are sentenced to death. May the Lord have mercy on your soul.”
Neither Leon nor Theron gave more than a brief reason for refusing leave to appeal. But most striking in both cases was the apparent nonchalance with which the Appellate Division rejected their petitions for appeal. On June 26 1986 — less than three months after his sentence — a terse notification from the registrar of the highest court refused Zondo leave to appeal and thereby sealed his fate. It said only: “I am directed by the Honourable the Chief Justice to inform you that leave to appeal against extenuating circumstances is refused.”
An almost identical order of refusal came — twice — in Mahlangu’s case.
In neither of the cases were reasons given and in neither were any judges named — standard practice at the time. We will never know, from the publicly available records at least, who on the Appellate Division saw fit to send a 19-yearold to the gallows. Nor a 23-year-old, convicted for the murder of people whom he had not killed.