Student robber gets 10 years

A STUDENT, who apparently called the shots during a home invasion of a Durban attorney, was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment this week.

It was believed that the gun-toting Melikhaya Thomas Dlamini, 27, and his four armed accomplices, stole valuables worth more than a R1 million, plus a car belonging to attorney Ahmed Rashid Amod.

They struck early on November 19, 2018, at Amod’s home on Ridge Road, Berea. Amod, his wife, daughter, two sons and elderly mother-in-law were held up.

A knife was placed on his daughter’s throat to coerce Amod into showing the robbers where his safe was kept. One of the robbers assaulted Amod repeatedly, hitting him with the butt of a gun on his back.

Dlamini, who was armed with a small black gun, showed the family a loaded magazine and said: “I’m not here to f*** around.” He was the only one arrested and was charged with three counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances.

Two of Amod’s domestic workers, who were present when the robbers barged in, were also arrested, but later released because of a lack of evidence to confirm their involvement.

Amod’s Toyota Corolla was recovered, but none of the other valuables, which included branded watches, clothing, various pieces of jewellery and mobile phones, were found.

Amod said the family were left “highly traumatised”, and have since relocated.

“It was a terrible experience that is always on our minds. We try not to talk about it, because it brings back the memories.”

Amod was “very disappointed” that only one person was arrested. “With the others still at large, we are living in constant fear. I still believe this was an inside job,” he said.

After he had disarmed his home security system, at around 5.45am, for his domestic worker to enter, the robbers pounced.

Musa Ismael, Amod’s son, said he shared a bedroom with his younger brother. They were woken when two unknown men tugged at their ankles, and made them crawl to their parents’ room.

Ismael estimated the ordeal lasted nearly an hour before their possessions were loaded into suitcases and driven away in his father’s car.

Rashida Kajee was the only family member who was not roughed-up by the gang. One of the robbers had entered her room and cordially said, “Granny, don’t talk or shout”.

He then led Kajee by the hand up a stairway, and into her daughter’s room. Unlike the others, who were tied up and lying face down on the floor, the robber gave Kajee a pillow to sit on.

Kajee said she noticed Dlamini was fair in complexion, wore a red hoodie and was very “angry” and “arrogant”. She recalled Dlamini threatening to slit her granddaughter’s throat with a knife if they didn’t get more money.

Kajee told the robbers there was no safe, but she could point out a secret cupboard in the house, and she did.

Both Kajee and Ismael attended a police identity parade and pointed out Dlamini. He was arrested shortly after the attack, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and said the witnesses who identified him were “lying” or “mistaken”.

He also claimed that the pair could have seen a photograph of him before the parade.

Leaving his rented home in Amaoti, Inanda at 7.15am and arriving in Durban at 8am for classes at a creative arts college was his routine.

Durban Regional Court magistrate Anand Maharaj said the “nub of the matter turns on the identity of the accused”, and for the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt, Dlamini’s involvement. He considered Ismael and Kajee as excellent, honest and credible witnesses. They had had ample time to observe Dlamini, they corroborated each other’s versions and singled him out in the identity parade.

Maharaj interpreted Kajee as saying one of the robbers was kind to her as someone who had no intention to embellish her evidence.

He noticed how Kajee broke down and cried when she saw Dlamini’s face in the witness stand.

“The fear was palpable on her face. This was someone who is reliving the incident and served to indicate that she correctly identified Dlamini.”

Maharaj said Dlamini was not an impressive witness, and gave multiple versions of his defence. He was also at odds with the length of time Dlamini remained silent about his alibi.

Maharaj ruled that the State, led by advocate Kuveshni Pillay, had proven their case.

He added that Dlamini could only be convicted on one, and not three counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, because they stemmed from the same criminal act.