EDITORIAL: The sad case of Petrus Shoovaleka
A recent High Court ruling, which dismissed a lawsuit by a former taxi driver, needs further probing. Petrus Shoovaleka spent 10 years, five months and 29 days in jail before he was acquitted of robbery.
Arrested in 2005, his trial only started seven years later, lasting three more years.
Judge Herman Oosthuizen found that Shoovaleka’s prolonged detention was not arbitrary, but was in accordance with competent court orders, the constitution and procedures established by law. No ‘competent court’ delays a trial by seven years, unless the accused was responsible for the delays.
That the court looked at this matter exclusively through the strict, technical lenses of the law – without an iota of humanity - is a miscarriage of justice. The law provides for ‘nominal damages’, which is a trivial sum of money awarded to a plaintiff whose legal right has technically been violated but who has not established that they are entitled to compensatory damages. Shoovaleka will not get that either. The system that was responsible for the 32 postponements his case endured is not ready to take responsibility.
If he was convicted on the basis of wrong evidence, his case for restitution would probably be a tad weak. But he was behind bars for a decade without conviction. Now he is told to jog off into the sunset. Seemingly, the court was tired and irritated by his grumbling for justice. They didn’t care about his ‘boring’ story.
Arrested in 2005, his trial only started seven years later, lasting three more years.
Judge Herman Oosthuizen found that Shoovaleka’s prolonged detention was not arbitrary, but was in accordance with competent court orders, the constitution and procedures established by law. No ‘competent court’ delays a trial by seven years, unless the accused was responsible for the delays.
That the court looked at this matter exclusively through the strict, technical lenses of the law – without an iota of humanity - is a miscarriage of justice. The law provides for ‘nominal damages’, which is a trivial sum of money awarded to a plaintiff whose legal right has technically been violated but who has not established that they are entitled to compensatory damages. Shoovaleka will not get that either. The system that was responsible for the 32 postponements his case endured is not ready to take responsibility.
If he was convicted on the basis of wrong evidence, his case for restitution would probably be a tad weak. But he was behind bars for a decade without conviction. Now he is told to jog off into the sunset. Seemingly, the court was tired and irritated by his grumbling for justice. They didn’t care about his ‘boring’ story.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article