Katlego Sekhu
A Tazz driver in Durban South who was mugged while leaving a shopping center may face legal consequences for running over her perpetrator.
Nthabiseng Dubazana, the founder of Dubazana Attorneys, recently joined 959 Breakfast to discuss the potential case against the driver if the victim chooses not to press charges. Dubazana also provided insights into the limits of the driver’s defence.
Dubazana acknowledged that many people believe the Tazz driver was justified in her actions. However, she emphasized that the law does not necessarily align with public opinion.
“If I were to represent her, our primary defence would be self-defence,” Dubazana explained. “However, in this particular case, she exceeded the boundaries of self-defence. There was no immediate danger directly threatening her then, and she ran over the perpetrator from behind.”
She continued, “If I were her attorney in this particular matter, I would speak to the state, and once the charges are opened, we would do negotiations in terms of Section 105A, wherein I could determine my own sentence in agreement with the state because it is not going to look good for her if she decides to plead not guilty in that situation.”
Dubazana further noted that although the Tazz driver was understandably upset, she should have recognized the potential consequences of her actions.
“It doesn’t matter if you didn’t know that the law is not going to cover you in this situation; you are still going to be found guilty,” she explained.
“So blind rage is not going to be a defence, and if you are going to do that, you are trying to adopt Sections 77, 78, and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act, wherein your mental state has to be questioned. Whether or not you had the mental and criminal capacity at the moment to conduct yourself in the manner that you did.”
Read Next: Psyfo and his wife celebrate their son’s birthday with gratitude
We value your feedback:
[vfb id=97]
