By Aphiwe Ngowapi
The Makhanda High Court this week sentenced former paramedic Nomsa Seyisi to life imprisonment for the murder of her cousin’s boyfriend and 15 years for the attempted murder of the cousin.
Judge Thandi Victoria Norman ordered the two sentences to run concurrently, effectively sentencing Seyisi to life imprisonment.
After a trial that lasted a little more than a week, the matter was concluded on Monday with justice for Thembinkosi Wambi and Zukiswa Frans.
The case sent shockwaves across Makhanda.
Seyisi had pleaded not guilty to all the charges, dismissing any suggestions of a murder plot.
However, she was convicted of murder and attempted murder.
The court found Seyisi complicit in a scheme to eliminate Wambi and Frans, linked to an insurance policy taken out by Seyisi’s associate, Buntu Melani, on Frans’ life.
Before judge Norman sentenced Seyisi on Monday, defense advocate Charles Stamper had argued that Seyisi was not the direct perpetrator and the fact that she was found guilty under the doctrine of common purpose, should count in her favour.
State advocate Jan Engelbrecht challenged this, stating that Wambi and Frans were taken out of the safety of their home under false pretenses by Seyisi, and she had been the reason the car had stopped and the two were dragged out of the car and made to lie face-down. She had even stepped on their backs to check if they were dead.
Judge Norman asserted that as a paramedic, Seyisi was entrusted with the lives of the community, but left Wambi and Frans to die and didn’t even call an ambulance.
The court had also taken into account social worker Nomonde Stamper’s testimony. Stamper had recommended direct imprisonment, noting Seyisi’s lack of remorse and stating she was not suitable for rehabilitation.
Stamper also testified about the impact of long-term imprisonment for Seyisi’s children and clarified that all children involved, including those of the victims (Wambi and Frans) would be impacted by the whole situation.
She mentioned that all parties involved would receive counseling and therapy.
Judge Norman accepted the social worker’s report.
However, advocate Stamper criticised the report, particularly where it found Seyisi had not shown remorse. The advocate urged the court to take into account that Seyisi was a first-time offender, and that life imprisonment was equivalent to death and a disproportionate sentence for a first-time offender. He also submitted that Seyisi not be incarcerated far away from her family, suggesting Gqeberha to be the most convenient.
The defense said it should taken into account that Seyisi had been in custody for one year and three months.
Engelbrecht, on the other hand, maintained that Seyisi was part of a pre-planned plot, playing an integral part in the planning and execution of the murder, and therefore it made no difference whether she pulled the trigger or not.
Engelbrecht emphasised that children should not be used as a shield from serving jail time, especially because the Seyisi’s kids were well taken care of physically and financially.
He said there was a direct intent of killing and “It is not out of the good doing of the accused that Frans’ life was spared and she survived,” said Engelbrecht.
Norman said Seyisi had planned and orchestrated the murder, knowingly committing the offenses and associating herself with people she claimed she knew were criminals.
She said life imprisonment was the prescribed minimum sentence for the murder offence and was appropriate for the crimes committed by Seyisi.
The judge maintained that just because she was a first-time offender, that should not limit the court or change the appropriate sentence for an offense, as the court looks at the extensiveness of a case and the relevant sentences imposed for those offenses.
The judge went on to read the accused’s biography, including her work, family, and kids, also mentioning that her contract was about to end at GuardMed at the time of the incident.
Norman said the social worker had found that the families of Wambi and Frans lived in fear, and that Wambi was the breadwinner and Frans cannot use her arm and therefore cannot work for herself or her children. Frans’ family decided to distance themselves from her because they felt unsafe around her.
The judge further emphasised that all children have rights, including those of the victims, saying that Wambi’s child was left fatherless at such a young age, with a sick and unemployed mother (Frans).
Judge Norman maintained that Seyisi ruptured this family, including her own, leaving her children with a father who is financially present.
The judge maintained Seyisi planned and orchestrated the murders, knowingly committing the offenses and associated herself with people she claims she knew were criminals.
Norman said Seyisi purposefully lied about the colour of the perpetrators’ car, protecting them from law enforcement, as an appropriate reason to distance her from the community. The court ruled that Seyisi actively participated in the murders.
Norman ordered therapy sessions for all children involved within the coming two months, that Zukiswa Frans, Phindiwe Wambi and Mcebisi Mbunge (family of victims) be offered counseling or therapy, and that a progress report be tabulated after six months.
The judge emphasised the importance of everyone’s life, rich or poor, and what a pity it was that one can benefit financially from one’s death, calling the crimes callous and brutal. Norman noted how much we live in a country rife with poverty and funeral policies are used to make money, turning the industry into an illicit money making scheme.
She said funeral policy companies need to revisit their terms and conditions, considering the privacy of people.
