‘The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services is ordered to place the applicant on parole on such terms and conditions as he may deem appropriate, and to take all such steps as may need to be taken to ensure that the applicant is released on parole within 10 calendar days from the date of this order.’

– Chief Justice Raymond Zondo

The Constitutional Court yesterday ruled that Janusz Walus who gunned down SACP leader Chris Hani nearly 30 years ago should be released on parole within 10 days.

The ruling – which coincided with a full Bench of the SCA ruling that former President Jacob Zuma should return to jail – has sparked an outcry.

The Polish immigrant who came dangerously close to derailing SA’s transition to democracy in 1993 is serving a life sentence at the Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Facility for Hani’s murder.

Chief Justice Raymond Zondo noted that more than 15 years had elapsed since Walus became eligible for parole and Justice Minister Ronald Lamola’s decision was ‘irrational, falls to be reviewed and must be set aside’.

Zondo said the court needed to take into account that Walus was involved in a serious crime that was meticulously planned.

Walus has made several unsuccessful applications for parole, with Lamola having refused his latest one (the subject of the current court proceeding) in 2020.

EWN reports that he tried to take this decision on review in the Gauteng High Court but Judge Elizabeth Kubushi dismissed his application. He subsequently approached the SCA but was again unsuccessful. He then turned to the country’s apex court, where the case was argued in January and judgment handed down yesterday.

In refusing Walus parole in 2020, Lamola found all the factors he had to consider were in Walus’ favour – save for two.

The two that he said counted against Walus included remarks made by the trial court during sentencing and those made by the SCA when it dismissed Walus’ appeal against his conviction and sentence. But the court found these were, in fact, not relevant.

The Herald reports that Walus had argued that there was nothing he could ever do to change either of these and that if the Minister’s decision stood, that meant he would never get parole.

Zondo agreed.

‘In his answering affidavit, all the Minister said was in effect that it was not his position that the applicant would never be released on parole. He never explained how he could release the applicant on parole in the future when the reasons that prevented him from releasing the applicant on parole in 2020 would still be present and would not have changed,’ the Chief Justice said.

‘The question that immediately arises then is this: if, in the future, the Minister can or will release the applicant on parole on the same facts as those which prevailed in 2020 when he denied him parole, does that mean that he will have reached two different and mutually exclusive conclusions on the same facts? If he could reach the conclusion to release the applicant on parole on these facts in the future, why is it that he did not release him in 2020 on the same facts? If the Minister were to release the applicant on parole on the same facts in the future, how will he justify his two conflicting conclusions on the same facts?’

EWN reports that Zondo said Lamola had not explained any of this to the court.

‘His failure to explain this renders his decision to deny the applicant parole inexplicable,’ he said.

Full report in The Herald

Full EWN report