RE: STATE VS JOHANNES KANA: WHY THE STATE REJECTED KANA'S GULITY PLEA
In February, 2013 Anene Booysen, a 17 year old girl, was raped and murdered in Bredasdorp, Western Cape. During the rape she sustained injuries to her face and arms as well as extensive injuries to her genitals which caused her intestines to protrude from her genital area. This resulted in her death. Johannes Kana was arrested days after the incident. He was charged with her rape and murder.
Based on the evidence contained in the docket, the State is of the view that the circumstances under which the rape and murder occurred, warrants a minimum sentence of life imprisonment in respect of both charges. To ensure that the matter is concluded as speedily as possible, the State asked the accused to plead to the charges of rape and murder in terms of section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
This section aims to identify and limit the issues in dispute between the State and the accused. On 3 June 2013, Kana pleaded guilty to the rape of Anene Booysen and not guilty to her murder. In his plea he admitted that he left the pub with her; assaulted her by kicking and hitting her with his fists and then raped her. His plea amounts to an admission of guilt for rape under circumstances which warrants a minimum sentence of only ten (10) years imprisonment. The State chose not to accept the plea of the accused.
The State is not obliged to accept a guilty plea tendered by an accused if it is of the view that the contents of the plea does not correspond with the evidence available to the State. In the case of Kana, his guilty plea did not correspond with the evidence available to the State.
In respect of the rape charge he describes circumstances which only warrant a minimum sentence of ten (10) years' imprisonment and not the circumstances as, contained in the docket, which warrants a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Furthermore, he does not state where or how he raped the deceased. In respect of the murder charge, the accused pleaded not guilty.
While he chose to exercise his right to remain silent as to the reasons for such plea, it is clear from the plea explanation offered in respect of the rape charge that he denies inflicting the extensive genital injuries on the deceased which caused her intestines to protrude from her genital area and ultimately, caused her death.
He therefore denies that he murdered her. For the reasons stated above, the state did not accept the plea and the matter will go on trial. When the trial ensues the admissions of the accused in respect of the rape charge will remain as evidence against him. In other words, the State no longer needs to prove that he left the pub with the deceased, nor that he raped her and assaulted her by kicking and hitting her with his fists.
This will shorten the trial because the focus of the trial will be on proving the exact circumstances of the rape and the remaining murder charge. By utilising section 119, the State hopes to speedily bring finality to this matter.
Statement issued by Eric Ntabazalila, NPA Regional Communications Manager, June 6 2013
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
