Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour owner Ronel Mostert walked out of the Grahamstown Magistrate's Court a free woman on Wednesday 1 October, after she was discharged in terms of section 174 Act 51/1977.*
Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour owner Ronel Mostert walked out of the Grahamstown Magistrate's Court a free woman on Wednesday 1 October, after she was discharged in terms of section 174 Act 51/1977.*
The eagerly awaited trial got off to a dramatic start yesterday as the first witness Mzwanele Klaas described to the court how he and Siphamandla Dyasi cut through the flesh and bones of deceased Thamsanqa Tshali's legs.
He repeated his assertion that this had been under the instruction of their boss, Mostert.
In handing down his judgment today, magistrate Piet van Vuuren said he was dealing with the evidence of Klaas only. Both Klaas and Dyasi testified in the trial.
Explaining his reasons for disregarding Dyasi's evidence, Van Vuuren said Mostert's instructions to Dyasi on the day in question had been conveyed via Klaas, in the form of a translation. This was because Mostert had spoken in Afrikaans.
Van Vuuren said Klaas was thus in a position to do this in a way that suited his version of events.
Throughout the trial, Mostert was not required to sit in the dock, unless she was being addressed by the court. Instead, she sat next to her legal team.
Explaining why Mostert was not seated in the dock with Klaas and Dyasi, state prosecutor Lyle Prins said Mostert's legal team had made an application for her to sit with them so she could consult easily.
Most of the case was conducted in Afrikaans.
Mostert, 49, was facing charges of mutilation of a corpse.
Dyasi and Klaas alleged that Mostert forced them to use an angle grinder to cut short a dead man's legs so his tall body could fit into a coffin.
They said not to do so would have put their jobs at risk.
The alleged incident was said to have taken place in 2011, when the two men worked at Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour.
Van Vuuren said the undisputed facts of the case were that on 14 January 2011 two men were busy grinding away at the legs of a dead man's body, which was given to a funeral parlour which is supposed to look after corpses in a dignified manner.
He said Klaas had not answered to 99% of the questions put to him.
He said it was clear that the possibility of losing his job was clearly a motivating factor in his reporting the case.
In the judgment, Mostert was not referred to in connection with the alleged incident.
Mostert's defence had earlier in the trial told Klaas she would testify that when he (Klaas) realised the body did not fit into the coffin he told her he would "make a plan".
The accused, Mostert, was discharged in terms of section 174 Act 51/1977.
Her two former employees could face prosecution.
*Changes to this story have been made. It originally stated "charges of the violation of a corpse were dropped." This is infact incorrect – rather, the accused was discharged in terms of section 174 Act 51/1977.
Thank you Anschen Conradie.
