The wrongful imprisonment of individuals remains a serious concern in South Africa’s justice system, with cases such as that of Mthandeni Shange highlighting the devastating consequences of judicial errors. Shange, from Ward 53 in Maoti, Inanda, spent 25 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit, a crime made even more shocking by the fact that the alleged victim is still alive today.
In response to questions regarding what steps the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) has taken to prevent and rectify such injustices, the department has distanced itself from any responsibility, stating that it is bound to enforce court-imposed sentences.
According to the DCS, refusing to admit a convicted person would amount to a violation of Section 165(5) of the Constitution, which mandates that all court decisions are binding on the state and its institutions. As a result, the department asserts that it cannot challenge or overturn wrongful convictions, as this falls under the jurisdiction of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the judiciary.
While Shange has now been released after serving his full sentence, his co-accused, Sipho Madonsela, remains in prison. Sentenced to life imprisonment on 31 October 2005 at the Scottburgh Court, Madonsela has no scheduled release date.
However, in a recent development, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was alerted to the case on 24 February 2025. This could potentially open the door for legal intervention, but as of now, Madonsela remains incarcerated despite the glaring injustice surrounding his conviction.
The DCS has made it clear that any legal recourse for Shange and Madonsela lies between them and the State, represented by the NPA. This means that their fight for justice must continue through the legal system, either via a judicial review, an appeal, or a request for a retrial.
However, the case raises broader concerns about how South Africa handles wrongful convictions. Given that Shange already served his full sentence, members of the Portfolio Committee on Corrections believe the State must address critical questions about compensation, rehabilitation, and the immediate release of his co-accused, who remains imprisoned for a crime that never occurred.
