Africa-Press – Eswatini. The appeal against a life sentence filed by Chinese national Qing Ming He was yesterday postponed to next year by the Supreme Court.
This is after it transpired that the matter was not ripe to be heard as there were several applications pending before the court in the same matter that need to be ventilated before the appeal is heard.
When the matter was called before presiding Judge Phesheya Dlamini who was with Judges Robert Cloette and Mbutfo Mamba, Advocate Mduduzi ‘Tsotsi’ Mabila indicated that his instructing attorney Noncedo Ndlangamandla had given him a brief in the matter since the South African Advocate Berry Roux would no longer proceed with it.
Judge Dlamini noted that there appeared to be a number of applications in the matter and enquired from both counsel what the position was.
All the parties were in agreement that the matter must be postponed for Advocate Mabila to take full instructions.
Judge Dlamini after deliberations and submissions were made then ordered that the matter be postponed to the next session of the Supreme Court. “I know this is a serious matter and the liberty of the appellant is at stake, hence the matter should be dealt with expeditiously. it is accordingly postponed to the next session of the Supreme Court,” Judge Dlamini ordered.
The third and final session of the Supreme Court ends in the next two weeks.
Quing Ming is appealing against his conviction and life sentence as he was sentenced to 66 years, 11 months for the murder of Matsapha-based businessman Almor Oliveira.
He had been charged with 11 counts related to the kidnapping and alleged murder of the businessman. Oliveira was kidnapped from his business premises in Matsapha. The sentence was meted out by the court a quo (High Court) as per Judge John Magagula who in issuing his sentence told Quing Ming that he showed no mercy when he and his other accomplices kidnapped a sickly elderly man and ultimately ended his life.
The court a quo also stated in its judgment that Quing Ming also did not show remorse throughout the trial proceedings and observed that on the count of murder, there could be no doubt that this offence was at the top of the list of the most serious offences and the sanctity of human life cannot be over-emphasised.
The court a quo further stated that any person who takes away the life of another for no justifiable reason does not deserve to live and ought to be removed from society and preferably permanently so.
Ming He was sentenced to life imprisonment (25 years) on the murder conviction, five years for the kidnapping charge while the 36 years and 11 months related to the charges on illegal firearm and ammunition possession, including the theft of a vehicle’s registration plate together with contravention Section 2 of the Passport Act of 1971.
All sentences, except the two related to the theft and the passport charge, are being served concurrently.
The two minor offences had only attracted sentences of five and six months, respectively, and the court a quo also took note that most of the offences which the Chinese national was facing were serious ones and further highlighted that they were cruelly and viciously carried out.
Judge Magagula described Ming who has no previous convictions in the country, as the mastermind in the violent acts committed and that he knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions because at the time when the offences were committed, he was already matured at the age of 44 then.
The court a quo observed that at that age, Ming He was in a good position to see and hear all, especially because at some point the victim ran out of his medication, but they went ahead and killed him. He said he also didn’t think about Oliveira’s family, especially his wife who was also at an advanced age.
The demand of a ransom of E5 million for the release of her husband according to the court a quo must have been a devastating experience on Oliveira’s wife.
The court a quo stressed that it could be said without any doubt that all right thinking members of society frown upon the commission of crime. However, some crimes are easily forgiven or taken lightly by society.
These are the minor offences, particularly those for which a person has a reason for committing, such as the theft of a loaf of bread by a hungry person.
On the other hand, there are those serious offences which even if the convict can have an explanation, society will not easily or readily forgive their commission, according to the trial court.
For More News And Analysis About Eswatini Follow Africa-Press
