When the music plays, the guilty tremble: Those implicated in Magaqa's assassination may face the law

IOL News

18 hours ago

Ncengwa, one of four accused who have been facing this case for eight years, pleaded guilty in pursuit of leniency. His admission shattered the reputations of respected public officials and revealed allegations of orchestrated criminality embedded within state systems.
The testimony of Sibusiso Ncengwa (37) opens the door for the masterminds, coordinators, and hitmen implicated in the brutal murder of Sindiso Magaqa, former Secretary General of the ANC Youth League in September 2017, to face the full force of the law.
In his formal plea statement submitted in terms of Section 220, Ncengwa revealed the painful truth that Magaqa was murdered because of his commitment to fighting crime and corruption within the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality, under the Harry Gwala District.
His investigative efforts and steadfast opposition to corruption placed him in grave danger after uncovering patronage schemes that undermined fair procurement processes, and alleged embezzlement of funds earmarked for public infrastructure.
According to Ncengwa, the plot to assassinate Sindiso Magaqa was initiated by Mluleki Ndobe, the then-mayor of the Harry Gwala District Municipality, who later shot himself at his home in November 2020, and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, the then-manager of the Umzimkhulu Local Municipality.
These senior figures, Ncengwa claims, were aided by Mdu Ncalane, executive communications official at eThekwini Municipality and a known ANC provincial leader in KwaZulu-Natal.
Ncengwa further stated that Mdu Ncalane played a pivotal role in linking Ndobe and Sikhosana to the hitmen, including Ncengwa himself, Mbulelo Mpofana, Sibonelo Myeza, and Mlungisi Ncalane.
Ncengwa reported that Mdu Ncalane oversaw the delivery of the initial payment, approximately R120,000, which was divided among the perpetrators.
These allegations underscore the reach of the justice system in addressing organised crime, particularly where a gunman, a plot originator, and an intermediary are involved.
This is supported by provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, whose application surges with the fury of the uThukela in flood, when brought to bear against orchestrated acts of violence.
Under the legal doctrines of common purpose and collaborative criminal intent, soliciting, facilitating, or aiding a murder is legally tantamount to drawing the bow and firing the arrow yourself.
This establishes that all who played a role must face equivalent charges. Beyond the Criminal Law Amendment Act, South African courts are bound to uphold the principle of legal precedent, where past decisions of superior courts provide binding guidance in similar cases.
Rulings such as S v Mgedezi & Others (1989), S v Pule (1995), S v Masilela & Another (2001), and S v Thebus & Another (2003) establish that individuals who plan, facilitate, or materially support a murder, such as by paying for it or supplying weapons, can be held equally liable as the perpetrator, provided they shared the intent and associated themselves with the criminal act.
According to this doctrine, a person who did not physically carry out the murder but who facilitated or supported the plan may face the same murder charges as the actual perpetrator.
If sufficient evidence is established, Mdu Ncalane and Zweliphansi Sikhosana, named by Ncengwa as coordinators and masterminds, could face equivalent charges for premeditated murder under the classification of "principal in the first degree."
This affirms the legal view that justice is not concerned with who fired the gun, but with who ordered it to be fired.
The public must attentively watch Ncengwa's sentencing, scheduled for today, which follows his plea of guilty to premeditated murder, confirming that the evidence against him has already been tested by a competent court with authority to establish precedent.
This creates a solid legal foundation that such evidence, once accepted for conviction, cannot later be disregarded or diminished when introduced by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as leading evidence against the remaining accused, including Mdu Ncalane and Sikhosana.Legally, a court cannot contradict or discard evidence it has previously deemed sufficient to convict.
Therefore, if the NPA opts to leverage Ncengwa's testimony to pursue others, the court must treat them consistently, without bias or dilution of evidentiary weight.
Accordingly, Ncengwa's sentencing must not be viewed merely as the end of a chapter in this case.
It may mark the beginning of a broader challenge to government institutions, particularly the judiciary, to follow evidence with integrity, ensuring that justice proceeds unimpeded by political agendas or leadership with ulterior motives.
*The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.
DAILY NEWS