Waterkloof 4 – Exploring the trial

Kevin_Kingby Kevin King

[followbutton username=’djkevking’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Most of us are aware of the ongoing saga of the Waterkloof 4 (Tiedt, van Schalkwyk, Becker & Du Preez), four underage white boys convicted of having assaulted and killed a homeless black man. Apart from the Oscar Pistorius murder, the trial has elicited more publicity than any other in recent South African history and has led to endless denunciations of “white racism” and psycho-babble about “Afrikaner brutality”.

I have been lucky enough to read through the witness and accuseds’ testimonies, crime-scene photos and specialist statements and found all of the evidence to be extremely interesting.  Unlike the Oscar Pistorius case, where many details were disclosed in the media, journalists never gave much away when reporting on the Waterkloof 4 case.  Maybe it was because it appeared to be open and shut, especially judging by the public and the mainstream media who presumed them guilty before proven innocent.  Nevertheless, a guilty verdict was handed down to four of the boys.  I’ve decided to lay out the facts about this case by sharing my findings, which come directly from court evidence.

The so-called 'Waterkloof 4 from L to R: Gert van Schalkwyk, Christoff Becker Reinach Tiedt and Frikkie du Preez
The so-called ‘Waterkloof 4’, from L to R: Gert van Schalkwyk, Christoff Becker, Reinach Tiedt and Frikkie du Preez


  • August 2003: three boys who had knowledge of the crime decided to come clean regarding the incidents which took place in December 2001.  These three identify the “Waterkloof 4”, aged 15 and 16 at the time of the crime, who are subsequently arrested.
  • July 2004:  they plead not guilty
  • June 2005:  they are found guilty
  • January 2007:  they are sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each
  • April 2008:  they appeal to the High Court
  • May 2008:  their appeal is denied
  • June 2008:  they take their case to the Supreme Court of Appeal
  • August 2008:  their application to the Supreme Court of Appeal is turned down and they start their 12 year sentences
  • December 2011:  two of the four have their sentences converted to correctional supervision after a successful parole hearing
  • June 2013:  the two return to jail after their parole is appealed by Correctional Services
  • February 2014:  the four are released on parole but two are rearrested days later after a video shows them violating prison regulations a day before their release.

The trial

In summary, the State’s case was based mostly on witness testimony that the Waterkloof 4 had assaulted an unknown black man in Constantia Park and later that night brutally assaulted and killed another unknown black man in Moreleta Park.  The Waterkloof 4 denied the first assault but admitted to the second assault, with exception that they killed the man or intended to kill him.  The only evidence other than witness testimony was the second victim’s body.

Constantia Park assault (alleged first assault according to witness testimony)

The accused vehemently denied this assault took place and thus the State had to prove this event occurred.  As mentioned, the only evidence was that of the State’s witnesses as there was no case of assault reported to police and the unknown man was never seen or heard from again.

The Defence accused the witnesses of fabricating the story and this accusation is given some credibility when the State’s witnesses left gaps in their testimony.  The judge dismissed these gaps and other anomalies due to “traumatic memory issues on behalf of the witnesses” and accepted their testimony as fact.  The defence also brought up the possibility of collusion which the judge dismissed, even though the State’s witnesses had more than a year to collude.

Nevertheless, the Defence had to counter the State’s witnesses’ testimony and did so by looking at phone calls which were used to identify a time line and locations of individuals, with the help of cellular phone towers.  Although the calls placed the accused in the vicinity of the second assault (Moreleta Park), they placed significant doubt on whether the Constantia Park assault was possible as it gave the accused (and witnesses which drove with the accused) a maximum of 14 minutes to drive in a fully loaded small Toyota Tazz from Hatfield, look for a shop to buy milk, assault the unknown man in Constantia, wait “5 minutes” for the other accused to meet up with them and then get to Moreleta Park.  To make the State’s case worse, the State’s witnesses testified that they were not speeding but the judge corrected this and stated that they were probably speeding, overriding State’s witness testimony and again raising doubts over the credibility of their testimony.  The Defence also questioned why the accused had driven through Constantia Park, as this was a longer route to where they were heading.

Although the accuseds’ testimony represented a more reasonable and logical explanation of events as it more reasonably fits the timing of the calls and the logical route to their destination, their testimony was dismissed as lies as it contradicted the testimony of the State’s witnesses.  In the end there was no reliable evidence to put the accused at this crime scene other than the State’s witnesses’ testimony which was accepted as reliable.

Near the end of the examination of the Constantia Park assault, the State prosecutor went on to say that the witnesses might have mistaken this event with something that happened on another day:

“Edelagbare, oor hulle getuienis daar op kan hulle verwar het met ‘n ander dag.  Dit is hoekom ek nie hard wil betoog oor hierdie klagte nie”

This was ignored by the judge.

Moreleta Park assault

The accused admitted to brutally assaulting an unknown man in Moreleta Park, who they claim was a burglar who had just robbed a residence.  This was backed up by the State’s main witness.  The Defence however questioned whether the man found in the park was actually the man they assaulted, an outrageous claim, but appears to be supported by the physical evidence (see below).  Again the State relied heavily on the State’s witness testimony that the man found in the park was the man the accused assaulted as the man was found in “exactly” the same place the next day after the assault.  It must be noted that the main State’s witness, who is not one of the Waterkloof 4, was also involved in the assault but was given immunity for turning State’s witness.

One of the State’s witnesses had disclosed to a teacher that the motive for the attack was purely racial while the accused say that they had gone after a man who had run across the road with a television.  They suspected the man of being involved in a burglary.  On the day of discovering the victim in the park, a car radio was found next to the victim and this was later found to be stolen as a case of robbery had been reported to the SAPS.  The victim was also found with a wallet (money inside), watch, and a ring and was well dressed with new shoes, smart cap and had four tattoos, which appears contrary to the claims that this man was homeless.  The State’s witness confession to the teacher prior to the arrests was that the accused never knew of the stolen goods during the attack and only used this as an excuse to do commit their foul deed.  Contradicting stories meant that it was up to the State to prove murder.

Besides the State’s witness testimony, the State had very little evidence:

  • No physical evidence linking the accused to the victim (no DNA, no trace evidence)
  • No murder weapon (no knives, no hammer)
  • No time of death (due to “refrigeration”)

By all accounts the assault was described as brutal.  Besides the melee of punching and kicking, one of the accused had demonstrated his “Naas Botha” kicks on the victim.  A State’s witness testified that this accused had kicked the victim twice in the face with steel tipped shoes, one of which was later found to be dented in.  This was confirmed by the aforementioned accused.  The entire group had jumped with full weight on the victim like in a “loose rugby scrum”.  Another of the accused had hit the victim twice on the crane of the head with a hammer, the first blow bringing the victim to his knees while the second blow floored the victim completely.  All of this was admitted by the accused and agrees with State witness testimony.  The State’s witness also testified that the accused had made stabbing motions towards the victim (admitted by the accused) but cannot confirm whether the accused had stabbed the victim.

The post mortem indicated that the unknown man had died of severe blood loss cause by one deep cut in his thigh.  Besides this cut, the medical experts made the following findings:

  • There were no bruises or fractures to the skull
  • There was minor subdural hematoma but no swelling on the brain or any other change to structure of the brain.  The fact of whether the hematoma was caused by the assault could not be determined.
  • Three small scars on the head, two of which had scabbed before the assault, the other one showed no signs of significant bleeding
  • Face, nose, tongue, throat showed no bruising, discolouration, bleeding, lacerations or scarring
  • There were no broken teeth
  • There was no bruising or trauma to the neck
  • There was no bruising or trauma to the chest and diaphragm
  • There was no bruising or trauma to the abdomen
  • Internal organs showed no trauma but some were bleak due to blood loss
  • No bruises or fracturing on the back
  • No noticeable bruising, fractures or trauma to the rest of the body

With regards to the cut in the thigh (cause of death), the medical experts made the following conclusions:

  • The victim had lost between 4 – 5 litres of blood, which meant he would have bled to death over a 24 – 48 hour period as no major arteries were penetrated.
  • With regards to the object that made the stab wound, the medical specialist found that: “Hierdie gat kon nie veroorsaak gewees het deur ‘n mes, of selfs ‘n dun yesterstaaf nie” or in English, this could not have been made by a knife or even a thin iron rod.  The object appeared similar to a spike on a palisade fence which backs up the Defence’s claims that the victim had cut himself on a palisade fence while fleeing from a residence he had burgled.

As you can see this posed serious questions against the State’s argument that the victim found in the park was the man that the accused claim they assaulted.  Some of these questions raised by the Defence were:

  • Physical evidence on the victim shows no correlation to the assault as described by the accused and the witnesses.  There is no evidence that suggests a knife or hammer was used in the attack even though a State’s witness had testified that he had seen blood on the hammer after the attack.  There was also no evidence that the boys had jumped on the victim or kicked the victim in the face.  When the pathologist was asked by the Defence whether it was obvious that the body brought before her was not the body of the man as described in the assault, she answered: “Yes that is correct.”  A second pathologist replied with the same answer.
  • The crime scene inspector found no evidence of blood on the ground near or beneath the victim, or anywhere else in the park for that matter.  Where did 4 – 5 litres of blood go?  The State contested that the light rain that night may have washed away any evidence of blood or that the victim’s clothing had absorbed all of the blood but this was disputed by the Defence.
  • The flow of blood on the victim suggests the possibility the body was moved after death and moved to the spot where the body was eventually found.
  • If the only injury the victim sustained was the cut to the thigh and the victim took between 24 and 48 hours to bleed to death, why did the man remain in the same spot for this lengthy period of time?  Why didn’t he seek medical treatment or at least crawl/limp away from the scene?
  • The victim’s shoes were removed while there had been no mention of this by the accused or State’s witnesses.

In the end however the judge ruled, after quoting a previous case “the State vs. Bernardus 1965”, that the body is full of anomalies and that sometimes death can be caused by the slightest of assaults.  Although this judgement contradicts all witness accounts and the physical evidence, this ultimately leads to the guilty verdict for the Waterkloof 4.


The Waterkloof 4 were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each, five years after the crime was committed (13 years ago).  Because of the extreme brutality of the assault, there was much public and media outcry for a harsh sentence.  However the law differentiates between adults and minors for sentencing purposes.  Taking into account that the perpetrators were juvenile (also first-time offenders), different sentencing laws had to be followed.

Quoting an article by Zita Hansungule, who works at UP’s Centre for Child Law:  “In 2009 the Centre for Child Law had challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act which provided that minimum sentences should apply to 16 and 17 year-old offenders.

The High Court found that applying minimum sentences to these offenders was not in line with the Constitution which provides that children have the right not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, and then, if detention is unavoidable, only for the shortest appropriate period of time. The High Court held that in cases pertaining to minors, the courts must consider all available sentencing options, especially non-custodial sentences, before considering detention. 

The Constitutional Court was approached to confirm the decision of the High Court. It confirmed the decision and held that the Constitution envisages that detention of young offenders may be possible, but it mitigates the circumstances of detention. It confirmed that for minors, detention is not a first or intermediate resort but a last resort. The Court held that each individual case needs to be examined on an individualised basis so that an appropriate sentence can be found. It stated that ‘legislation cannot take away the right of 16 and 17year olds to be detained only as a last resort, and for the shortest appropriate period of time, without reasons being provided that specifically relate to this group and explain the need to change the constitutional disposition applying to them’. 

These judgements confirmed that children should be treated differently to adults in sentencing, no matter how old they are. Both courts were of the view that children are less physically and psychologically mature than adults, more susceptible to pressure from others and more receptive to rehabilitation than adults.”

Taking this into account the Waterkloof 4 appeared to be sentenced fairly as this is about the maximum that a juvenile will face for a single murder charge.


As with the case of sentencing, parole is also a thorny issue.  In accordance with the law, the Waterkloof 4 were released on parole last week.  The law allows for this if the offenders have served 50% of their sentences and have completed internal correctional programmes and have been well-behaved.  According to parole documents the four were all but exemplary during their stay.  I’ve looked through parole documents and found that they interacted well with other inmates and also took part in social activities.  Study courses were also completed during this time.  It is thus reasonable to concede that their release on parole is in accordance with the law.  Subsequently however, two members of the Waterkloof 4 have been ordered to return to prison after a video showed them “living it up” in their cell a day before release.


It has been more than 10 years of trials, appeals, paroles and controversy, a kind of soap opera that will be remembered by most of us for many decades to come.  As I’ve described, there are many questions left unanswered regarding the crimes committed in 2001, those which surfaced during trial.  There are also questions we need to ask regarding our criminal justice system.  I’d like others’ thoughts on this matter…

Kevin King is a professional DJ and freelance columnist

  • JAVR

    This is to say the least, SHOCKING. I have no law education whatsoever but can guarantee you today that these, now men, could not have been found guilty based on the evidence given above! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! There is NO CONCRETE evidence that this deceased being was the assaulted one! So much for our law! What they have done by assaulting someone is unacceptable but not enough to put them in jail for all these years!!! Proven the dead skunk WAS A THIEF, and dead by his OWN STUPIDITY!

    • Annatjie Kruger

      NOT SO MUCH FOR THE LAW, but rather blame the attorney and advocate they
      had. There is NOTHING wrong with the law. Basically it is the same
      one that has been used since Jan van Riebeeck arrived at the Cape more
      than 300 years ago. If they were not guilty, they had pathetic lawyers
      and advocates, who could not convince the judge that they were
      innocent. Also do not forget that they ADMIT to assaulting (BRUTALLY)
      if you go by the description in this article. That man could have died
      from his injuries. And just by assaulting the thief they became
      criminals. Because it is as far as I know still illegal to assault
      another person, no matter what you think he had done wrong. But what
      you people are doing here is not looking at crime but you are making it a
      black and white issue.

      • Johan

        Ai Annatjie, jy skryf baie, maar jy lees nie graag nie, nê? Laat ek weer probeer. Die wette is nog dieselfde, maar die toepassing daarvan is rede tot kommer. Hierdie insident raak jou, want sou die staat ‘n pyn met jou of een van jou familielede ontwikkel kan hulle jou bêre op uiters wankelrige bewysstukke. Dan sal daar sekerlik vreeslik gesanik word.

        Rakende wette wat dieselfde bly merk ons ook die volgende:

        1.) ‘n Persoon is onskuldig totdat ‘n hof hom bo redelike twyfel skuldig bevind het. Redelike twyfel is neer aan seker se kant as wat die Waterkloof 4 gegun was. Daarby ook het niks uit waai met hoe arrogant die persoon is of hoe skelm hy vir ons lyk nie. Die bewysstukke maak saak.
        2.) Al die voordeel van die twyfel word aan die beskuldigde gegee. So wanneer daar ‘n bietjie twyfel oor ‘n punt is, word dit in die beskuldigdes se guns beslis (in ‘n perfekte wêreld). Hierdie is ook die 4 geweier.

        Rakende die aanranding is hulle gestraf daarvoor. Hulle is elk 2 maande tronkstraf opgelê vir die aanranding. Daar is baie te spekuleer oor hoe reg dit is om vermeende diewe aan te keer al dan nie en ook oor jong mense se arrogansie, maar dit het werklik niks uit te waai met korrupsie wat hier aan gegaan het nie.

        • JAVR

          Ag Johan moenie tyd mors om te probeer deurdring nie! Dit wil voorkom of dit vir haar ‘n baie persoonlike saak is so laat haar nou maar haar argument behou en gaan aan met jou lewe sonder dit! Maklik, poef…weg is sy!

  • Willy

    I believe that somebody in their inner circle, who may have had a vendetta
    against them or rather some of them, is a whistleblower. How did the video clip
    leak out?

    • Annatjie Kruger

      I believe that the person who turned State witness had remorse and decided to spill the beans. There is ABSOLUTELY no conspiracy here. The four brutally assaulted a man and was punished. Even if the man was a burglar it did not gave them the right to assault him. This was a group of young men (boys) who drank excessively, went on the rampage and in the process killed a man. If they were underage, why where they doing driving around drunk in the middle of the night.

      • Guest

        They did not kill a man. They were put in prison because they are white. Stop spreading lies

        • trueLies

          oh what?

          its becos im bleck
          it are becos i are white

          both are simple and ignorant

          • Gas

            Ja met daai klas van Engels wat jy praat het jy ook die bubonics onder lede. Ras bestaan want die swartes het so besluit. Get over it

        • Annatjie Kruger

          So all the black people in prisons are there because they are black? According to this article they did not kill THE MAN WHOSE BODY WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE. But they did brutally assault (BY THEIR OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ADMISSION) another man who could have died from that injuries. Why are you fighting for them now, because they are WHITE. Would you have felt the same if they were BLACK?

          • Keelvol

            Answer this one question and I will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your logic is not only flawed but that you personally pass judgment without even the most basic rules of what is considered fair in legal terms in a civilized society –
            Where is the body of the victim they supposedly assaulted and that could have died?

            I am not interested in the one that was planted in order to get a conviction…

            Shame on you!

  • Trippie

    Kevin, baie dankie vir hierdie artikel ! Hierdie geval is net nog ‘n bewys van hoe korrup die land se regstelsel is. As jou vel wit is, is jy gedoem, skuldig, of onskuldig. My vraag is, waarom so ‘n helse ophef maak van die drank – ja, dit is teen die reëls en regulasies, MAAR geen mens lewe is daardeur bedreig nie. Ek lees verder dat die beamptes wat hulle laat omkoop het, slegs gewaarsku is, waarom nie onmiddellik afgedank nie?

  • Pieter

    Ek het aan die begin van die saak gelees iemand het ‘n vendetta teen Becker se Pa gehad. Hierdie saam met die partytjie-video laat my wonder hoe waar dit is.

  • reggit

    While watching the home-made movie, my skin crawled……If I was his parent, I would dig a deep hole and climb into it.
    This obnoxious arrogant egotistical self-loving disrespectful law-breaking punk does not deserve to walk the streets. He is the typical bully, criminal, rapist….waiting to pounce on a weaker person than himself on his next ego/drunkard trip. Clearly not remorseful nor learnt any respect for rules while incarcerated. He admitted to assaulting another person, but conveniently failed to report that incident….WHY?
    The world is a safer place for defenseless innocent law-abiding citizens while this trash is behind bars.
    Cowards such as these do not try their hand against a person like myself….he knows that he will lose…..and bleed. His daddy’s money will not save him…

    • Johan

      Wat jy hier doen is deel van die probleem. Ons gee nie om hoe die reg misbruik word nie, solank as wat dit mense is wat ons nie van hou nie. Sodra iemand ‘n lamlendige verskoning gebruik om jou regte te na te kom dan is dit ‘n verskriklike storie. As ons die probleme gaan aanspreek moet ons op die probleme fokus en persoonlikhede uitlos.

    • Gas

      Nee wat pappie. Jy is skytbang vir die tronk en die Vier. Hulle sal jou hare vir mooi kam

      • reggit

        4 gesuipte seuntjies teen een ou hawelose man…Nie so taai soos hulle ego’s nie. Al hoekom hulle so ‘n partytjie hou is omdat hulle veilig agter die geslote deur weg van die algemene tronkbevolking sit. Kan jy nie sien dat sy video ‘n advertensie vir “soek ‘n moffie maaitjie” is nie?

        • Gas

          Hulle het niemand doodgemaak nie. Sukkel jy nog altyd met lees? Jy is so diep by die ANc ingekruip vee bietjie die str0nt uit jou oë. Hulle is in die tronk omdat hulle wit en Afrikaans is

          • reggit

            Lees jy mooi..Ek het nerens hulle beskuldig van moord. Hulle het self erken dat hulle iemand aangerand het. As hierdie optrede deur jou aanvaarbaar omdat jy Afrikaans en Blank is, dan is jy net so sleg soos die Barbare. Gaan suip lekker saam.
            Ek is ‘n Godvreesende, Konservatiewe, Trotse Blanke. Daar is geen plek in my wereld vir die wat wetteloos is nie.

          • Gas

            LOL wetteloos? Dan moet jy die Waterkloof4 ondersteun. Hulle is nie wetteloos nie. Hoe lank gelede het jy daar by die ANC Waterhoof hoerskool standerd vier gekry? Want dis seker 40 jaar gelede en jy is nog steeds jaloers, loser

          • Guest

            Sending two innocent youngsters back to behind bars because the prison officials are corrupt ANC scum? That just about says it all

          • Keelvol

            n Geldvresende, blanke selfhaater is al wat jy is… – Jou waardes is alles behalwe Godvresend – Daar staan Nie, jy mag nie jonk en dom wees, in die Bybel Nie! Maar volgens jou is dit genoeg om mense in nsa tronke te stop. Wie de hel dink jy is jy?

            Jou liberale, marxistiese kommunistiese wêreld is die mees wetteloos in die geskiedenis van die mensdom en jy sal eerder jong lewens verwoes in vyandige, vigs besmette, korrupte nsa tronke!

            Mense soos jy maak my siek, nie net kan julle nie die balk in
            julle eie oog sien nie, maar spoel in die openbaar julle bekke uit terwyl julle vee voor jou naaste se deur. Mag die oordeel wat jy oor hulle spreek, teen jou gebruik word.

            Geniet jou boesak belydenis ou! Soos die dwaas wat jy is…

  • Bobaas

    These racist barbarians are lucky the Nats sold the whites down the river,otherwise they would have been sentenced to death like Barend Strydom,under the nats.

    • White and proud of it

      GO TO HELL you damn idiot!!!!!

      • Bobaas

        Jy ook,”Witwolf”.

        • Gas

          Nee julle is die gespuis wat ou mense op plase doodmaak, ou terrorissie

          • Guest

            He’s a bobaas Vrotasem

    • trueLies

      life in prison

      with out the steroids and brandy

      • Bobaas

        No,a rope around their racist white necks.

        • Gas

          Hoekom moffie? Is jy bang vir hulle? Julle is mos sterk. Hoekom bewe jou broekie nou?

          • Bobaas

            Nee,ons stuur hulle tronk toe,soos jou pa,Dr letts.

  • Annatjie Kruger

    As alles wat in Kevin se verslag staan waar is. Dat die persoon wie dood aangetref is in die park nie die persoon is wat aangerand is nie en die beserings nie ooreenstem met die aanranding soos deur die vier en hulle vriende (staatsgetuies) en tog ongeag van ‘n duidelik weerspreking van getuienisse skuldig bevind is, het hulle ‘n uiters swak prokureur en advokaat gehad. Enige prokureur of advokaat wat hulle sout werd was sou hulle losgekry het op grond van die feit dat die beserings aan die dooie man nie ooreenstem met die beskrywing van die aanranding nie. Hulle weet hulle het ‘n man wreed aangerand en heelwaarskynlik doodgemaak, dus het hulle gekry (tronkstraf) wat hulle verdien het. Daar moet onthou word dat enige verdagte wanneer hulle in die hof kom die eerste dag en gevra word of hulle skuldig of onskuldig pleit, sal antwoord onskuldig. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regstelsel lê die onus op die Staat om jou skuld te bewys, nie op jou om jou onskuld te bewys nie. So jy word as onskuldig beskou totdat die Staat onweerlegbaar kan bewys dat jy wel skuldig is. As hulle dit nie sonder enige twyfel kan bewys nie, kan hulle jou nie skuldig bevind nie. Hoekom is hulle in elk geval deur hulle prokureurs toegelaat om te erken dat hulle ‘n persoon in Moreleta Park aangerand het?

    • Johan

      Jy het die beginsel reg, maar jy neem aan dat dit foutloos toegepas word. Dit is ‘n fout wat deur hierdie artikel uitgelig word. Ek het self deur die hofdokumente gelees en ek stem saam met wat hier gesê is. Dit dek nie al die vergrype nie, maar dit is ‘n goeie opsomming. Die W4 se Prokureur en Advokaat is van die beste in die regstelsel en sou jy die moeite doen om die hofsaak te lees sal jy vind dat hulle argument duidelik uitgelê is. Die Landdros het die teenstellende bewyse van die tafel af gevee en gekies om medepligtige-getuienis te glo. Nie net te glo nie, maar te korrigeer waar hulle problematiese getuienis gelewer het.

      Hulle het iemand aangerand en dit ook erken en dit is onaanvaarbaar in ‘n beskaafde samelewing. Die persoon wat hulle aangerand het kon ook moontlik gesterf het. Dit is alles spekulasie en gelukkig vir ons almal is dit die doel van die hof is om die feite van ‘n saak te oorweeg en ‘n beslissing te maak gebaseer daarop. Kan jy jou voorstel waar eindig dinge as ons mense begin oordeel op wat hulle kon doen of op wat ons glo hulle in staat is om te doen? Hierdie gaan oor die gesondheid van die regstelsel en nie oor bedorwe brokkies nie.

      Ons lewe in ‘n land wat so korrup is dat dit nie eens meer nodig is om dit weg te steek nie en jy kies om te glo dat die regstelsel onbeïnvloed bly. Die regstelsel is veronderstel om die laaste verweer te wees teen sinneloosheid en hierdie artikel wys dat daar ernstige vrae is om beantwoord te word. Ten spyte daarvan kies die groter meerderheid mense om dit oor te sien solank as wat ons ‘n paar arrogante, welaf laaities kan sien swaarkry. Die straf vir onkunde en traagheid mag dalk hoër wees as wat ons bereid is om te betaal. Miskien is dit tyd dat ons wakker word en die probleem aanspreek.

  • Pingback: Waterkloof-twee terug in aanhouding | praag.co.za()

  • Byron Richmond

    They might be innocent but they do have arrogant attitudes and no class.

    • Guest

      Enough to make them go to prison? Self-pric-tious right, by the same definition you should also be behind bars

  • Liza

    Waar kan ek die hofstukke in die hande kry? Ek is ‘n regstudent en doen ‘n opdrag hieroor, maar kry die saak nie by LexisNexis of Juta nie? Iemand wat weet, help asseblief!

    • Gas

      Kontak Dr Roodt.

    • Johan Rademeyer

      Die persoon wat oorspronklik die analise gedoen het se naam is Charles Scheepers indien ek korrek is. Dit is waar ek die dokumente gekry het.