THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No:107/2016

In the matter between:

AMBROSE MONYE
FIRST APPELLANT
ANDRE GOUWS
SECOND APPELLANT

and

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:  Monye v S (107/16) ZASCA 111 (02 September 2016)

Coram:
Bosielo, Zondi and Van der Merwe JJA and Schoeman
and Potterill AJJA

Heard:
18 August 2016
Delivered:
02 September 2016

Summary: Sentence - Appeal against sentence of life imprisonment for
murder - appellants the middlemen in contract killing - only co-operated
with police and admitted guilt after conviction - no true remorse - no
substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from minimum sentence
- sentences confirmed on appeal.

_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER

On appeal from: Gauteng Division, Pretoria (Kruger AJ sitting as court
of first instance)

The appeals of both appellants are dismissed and the sentences of life
imprisonment of both appellants are confirmed.

___________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT

Schoeman AJA (Bosielo, Zondi and Van der Merwe JJA and
Potterill AJA concurring)

[1] The two appellants, Messrs Ambrose Monye and Andre Gouws,
were charged with the murder of Ms Chanelle Henning (the deceased) as
well as offences related to the possession of unlicensed firearms. The
murder was committed on 8 November 2011. Both appellants pleaded not
guilty and after a trial they were convicted of murder and acquitted of the
other crimes.

[2] During the sentencing proceedings both admitted to their
respective roles in the murder of the deceased and conceded their guilt.
They were subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. Their appeal
against sentence only is with the leave of the trial court.

The facts
[3] On the morning of 8 November 2011 two men, Messrs Martin
Pieterse and Petrus Gerhardus du Plessis, followed the deceased’s motor
vehicle on a motorcycle from her home to the crèche which her four year
old son attended. Pieterse was the driver of the motorcycle while
du Plessis was his passenger. Having left her son at the crèche the
deceased started to drive off in her motor vehicle; du Plessis approached
her and shot her twice at point blank range. Pieterse and du Plessis left
the scene on the motorcycle. The deceased died as a result of the wounds
inflicted on her.

[4] Five people were arrested for the deceased’s murder viz Pieterse,
du Plessis, Monye, Gouws and a person who supplied the firearm. The
murder charge against the latter was withdrawn. The other four were
charged with the murder of the deceased. Pieterse and du Plessis entered
into plea and sentence agreements with the state in terms of the
provisions of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
They were each sentenced to undergo 18 years’ imprisonment in terms of
the plea bargain. Both Pieterse and du Plessis testified in the trial against
the appellants.

[5] After the appellants’ change of stance during the sentencing
proceedings, it became common cause that Gouws instructed Monye to
find someone to kill the deceased. Monye arranged with Pieterse and
du Plessis to execute the contract killing. Gouws thereafter pointed out to
Pieterse and du Plessis (a) the deceased’s security complex; (b) the
deceased’s son’s crèche; and (c) the school where the deceased worked.
Gouws provided the registration number of the deceased’s motor vehicle
to them and warned them not to shoot the deceased while her son was

with her in the motor vehicle. It is clear from the post-conviction
statements of Gouws and Monye that both Monye and Gouws worked as
middlemen to have the deceased killed and the roles of both were pivotal
in the eventual death of the deceased.

[6] This was clearly a premeditated murder. In terms of the provisions
of s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (s 51(1)(a)
read with Part I of Schedule 2) the trial court was obliged to impose life
imprisonment
unless
there
were
'substantial
and
compelling
circumstances' present, in which event, in terms of s 51(3)(a), a lesser
sentence could be imposed. Furthermore if:
‘[T]he sentencing court on consideration of the circumstances of the particular case is
satisfied that they render the prescribed sentence unjust in that it would be
disproportionate to the crime, the criminal and the needs of society, so that an
injustice would be done by imposing that sentence, it is entitled to impose a lesser
sentence.’1

[7] In Malgas it was set out that the circumstances expressed by the
phrase ‘substantial and compelling’ need not be exceptional but must
provide ‘truly convincing reasons’2 or ‘weighty justification’3 for
deviating from the prescribed sentence and imposing less than life
imprisonment. Furthermore, the specified sentences should not be
departed from for flimsy reasons4 and should ordinarily be imposed.

[8] Therefore, to determine whether there are substantial and
compelling circumstances it is necessary to analyse the facts with
reference to the criminals, the crime and the interests of society.

1 S v Malgas [2001] ZASCA 30; 2001 (2) SA 1222 (SCA) para 25.
2 Paras 8 and 25.
3 Paras 18 and 25.
4 Para 25(D).

The first appellant’s circumstances
[9] The personal circumstances of Monye were the following at the
time of passing of sentence. He was 39 years old and had two unrelated
previous convictions, which were not taken into consideration when
sentencing him. Monye matriculated in Nigeria. He was an accomplished
sportsman
who
represented
Nigeria
at
the
World
Athletics
Championships in 1993. His parents and siblings still reside in Nigeria.
He came to South Africa in 2001 and has a son who was nine years old
when sentence was passed. Monye owned a security company and earned
an income of between R40 000 and R50 000 per month.

[10] Monye’s personal circumstances were presented to the court from
the bar, during sentencing proceedings, after which Gouws testified in
mitigation and exposed Monye’s role in the death of the deceased. Only
after an adjournment did Monye change his version and admitted his
complicity in the death of the deceased. In a written affidavit by Monye,
which his counsel handed in on his behalf, it transpired that Gouws
informed him that he would be paid an amount of R50 000 immediately
after the ‘job is done’ and further amounts later on. Monye’s affidavit
concluded with the following:
‘Today, as I look back, I am ashamed of what I did, having been part of all this, I
regret it and am sorry. In the rough world where I was working, I lost sight of reality’.

The second appellant’s circumstances
[11] At the time of sentencing Gouws was a 49 year old first offender.
He matriculated and was a member of the South African Police Services
for a period of five years. Thereafter, he inter alia worked as an insurance
broker and in transport. He also worked in the United States of America
for some time and returned to South Africa in 2007. Since his return he

had worked as a debt collector and also owned a guesthouse. He has a son
who was 10 years old at the time of sentencing.

[12] From Gouws’ affidavit that was handed in, and his testimony, it
transpired that according to Gouws, Mr Nico Henning, the husband of the
deceased, and the deceased were embroiled in an acrimonious divorce.
Initially Henning asked Gouws, his friend of 24 years, to follow the
deceased and see what information he could gather that would reflect
badly on the deceased as Henning feared that he would not be granted
custody of their son. Later, he asked Gouws to plant drugs on the
deceased and have her arrested. These plans did not materialise. In the
end Henning promised to pay Gouws R1 million to have the deceased
killed and asked Gouws whether he would be prepared to shoot the
deceased. Gouws was unwilling to do it himself, but unbeknown to
Henning, he instructed Monye to get somebody to do the killing. In turn,
Monye contracted with Pieterse and du Plessis. Thereafter Gouws pointed
out the deceased’s security complex to du Plessis and Pieterse.

[13] The main contention regarding the personal circumstances of the
appellants advanced in their heads of argument, although not persisted
with in argument, is that they have shown remorse for their actions and
through owning up to their complicity have started the process of
rehabilitation. Due to the argument that the volte-face of the appellants
amounted to a substantial and compelling factor in respect of the interests
of the community, I am of the view that their complete change of
direction should be examined in all its facets.

[14] Whether the accused has true remorse is a question of fact.5 In S v
Matyityi6 the following was said:
‘There is, moreover, a chasm between regret and remorse. Many accused persons
might well regret their conduct, but that does not without more translate to genuine
remorse. Remorse is a gnawing pain of conscience for the plight of another. Thus
genuine contrition can only come from an appreciation and acknowledgement of the
extent of one's error. Whether the offender is sincerely remorseful, and not simply
feeling sorry for himself or herself at having been caught, is a factual question. It is to
the surrounding actions of the accused, rather than what he says in court, that one
should rather look. In order for the remorse to be a valid consideration, the penitence
must be sincere and the accused must take the court fully into his or her confidence.
Until and unless that happens, the genuineness of the contrition alleged to exist cannot
be determined.' (footnotes omitted)

[15] The only expression of remorse by Monye is the statement he made
in the affidavit referred to above. It is necessary to set out how and when
his remorse was first mentioned. This only came after a trial where he
pleaded not guilty and testified under oath. According to his testimony in
the trial prior to his conviction his interaction with Pieterse and du Plessis
was mainly to supply them with drugs and their employment by him as
bouncers. When he was in their presence and with Gouws, the latter three
would converse in Afrikaans and he did not understand what was being
discussed. Although they were in each other’s company on the day of the
deceased’s murder, he was not told that Pieterse and du Plessis were
involved in the killing. Monye attempted to exonerate himself and to
justify his actions while placing as much space between him and the
murder as possible. After his conviction and before sentence his counsel
intimated to the trial judge that he was going to appeal his conviction.

5 S v Volkwyn [1994] ZASCA 175; 1995 (1) SACR 286 (A) at 289h.
6 S v Matyityi [2010] ZASCA 127; 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA) para 13.

[16] I am of the view that the surrounding actions of Monye point to the
fact that he has shown no real remorse: he failed to reveal his complicity
to the police in the whole year before the trial commenced; and during the
trial, for a further period of a year, he persisted with his denial of any
involvement. After the sentencing proceedings had commenced he placed
his personal circumstances on record from the bar. It was only after
Gouws subsequently revealed the extent of Monye’s role in the
commission of the crime, that the latter changed his version. Even after
that he failed to testify under oath and subject himself to cross-
examination to enable the State to test whether he has shown true
remorse. This failure must be seen in light of the fact that his role was not
peripheral to but essential and central to the tragic end result. Through his
planning and intervention the shooter was brought into the conspiracy.
The ineluctable inference is that Gouws’ damning evidence was the
motivation for his change of heart

[17] Gouws agreed to change his version after he came to an agreement
with the State that he would reveal the whole plot, on condition that the
State would ask for 20 years’ imprisonment. He displayed no remorse in
the affidavit he presented to court, while his testimony during sentencing
was also devoid of any mention of remorse. His change of heart did not
constitute remorse if the surrounding facts are taken into consideration.
As with Monye, he did not demonstrate any remorse for the duration of
the period prior to the commencement of the trial and for the year of the
trial. In his testimony prior to conviction he emphatically denied
instructing anybody to kill the deceased. It was only after conviction that
he capitulated.

The crime
[18] The deceased was an innocent young woman who was killed
because she allegedly insisted on the custody of her son in divorce
proceedings. Due to her death her child is without a mother and her
parents have also lost a daughter. The murder by the two appellants in
this instance was a callous and cruel deed, committed purely for greed.
Monye agreed to become involved when he was promised an amount of
R50 000 while Gouws was swayed by his friendship with Henning and
the promise of an amount of R1 million. The trial court found that
without the monetary carrot it was unlikely that Gouws would have
agreed to the killing of the deceased.

[19] Due to the nature of the crime of assassination, or contract killing,
the objectives of deterrence and retribution emerge in the forefront of the
process in imposing punishment for such crimes.

Interests of society
[20] In S v Karg7 Schreiner JA emphasised the interest of the
community when he said:
‘It is not wrong that the natural indignation of interested persons and of the
community at large should receive some recognition in the sentences that
Courts impose, and it is not irrelevant to bear in mind that if sentences for
serious crimes are too lenient, the administration of justice may fall into
disrepute and injured persons may incline to take the law into their own hands.
Naturally, righteous anger should not becloud judgment.’

[21] The community interests are of paramount importance when
sentencing hired killers. Our Courts have in a whole series of judgments

7 S v Karg 1961(1) SA 231 (A) at 236B-C.

sentenced contract killers and persons who acted in concert with them
severely. In S v Mlumbi en 'n Ander8 it was stated that it is uncertain
which is the worse, a contracted killer who kills someone else for money
as he does it for greed or the contracted killer who kills another without
payment as he is clearly without a conscience. I quote from the headnote
where the following translation from the judgment is found:
‘[A] contract assassination was a heinous offence which has from early times filled
people with horror. It was also the kind of offence which held deadly danger for any
community and was in fact the kind of atrocity which gave a particularly sombre
meaning to the age-old expression 'homo homini lupus' [a man is a wolf to another
man] . . . [T]he present South African society was seriously threatened by such
conduct,  and dared not tolerate it.’
In S v Dlomo9 Goldstone JA said that offenders must be made aware that,
except in exceptional cases, the courts will impose severe sentences on
them.

[22] In S v Kgafela 10 Friedman JP said (paras 83 and 84) that:

‘Assassination contracts contain profound dangers and are a type of atrocity to
be combatted, and the Courts have a duty in the discharge of its function to visit such
perpetrators with the severest punishment. . .
In consequence of the aforegoing, the hiring of assassins has been treated as a serious
aggravating factor.’
In S v Ferreira and Others11 the court said when confirming the
imposition of life sentence:
‘Having regard to the nature of the crime they committed - killing for money - and the
limited extent of the mitigating factors referred to, the condemnation expressed in
previous cases of contract killing applies unrestrictedly to them. There are, on the

8 S v Mlumbi en 'n Ander [1990] ZASCA 153; 1991 (1) SACR 235 (A).
9 S v Dlomo & others [1991] ZASCA 94; 1991 (2) SACR 473 (A) at 477h to 478b.
10 S v Kgafela 2001 (2) SACR 207 (B).
11 S v Ferreira and Others [2004] ZASCA 29; 2004 (2) SACR 454 (SCA) para 53.

Malgas test, no substantial and compelling circumstances which justify a lesser
sentence in their cases.’
There, the hired killers were 22 and 20 years old respectively and they
pleaded guilty.

[23] It was argued that the fact that the appellants were willing to testify
against the alleged instigator of the murder was in itself a substantial and
compelling circumstance and therefore the prescribed sentence of life
imprisonment was unjust in the circumstances of this case. However,
Pieterse and du Plessis demonstrated when and how co-operation with the
relevant authorities should have taken place to derive the benefit from
such co-operation. The actions of the appellants smack of opportunism. It
was only when the writing was on the wall for both of them that they
made an about-turn. It was not to benefit society or to enable the
deceased’s family to have closure and not relive their trauma, but to
benefit themselves.

[24] I am of the view that it would not be in the interests of society that
the appellants be allowed to use such a volte-face as an escape route to
avoid a sentence peremptorily prescribed by the Legislature. That would
send out a wrong message and ignore the elements of deterrence and
retribution that are so important in cases of this kind. I am not satisfied
that in the circumstances of this case their about-turn is so weighty as to
qualify as a substantial and compelling circumstance and to justify a
sentence less than imprisonment for life.

[25] The trial judge did not misdirect himself. Therefore there are no
reasons to interfere with the imposed sentence.

The appeals of both appellants are dismissed and the sentences of life
imprisonment of both appellants are confirmed.

______________________
I Schoeman
Acting Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES

For Appellants:
J van Wyk (Heads of argument prepared by D
H Mostert)
Instructed by:
Pretoria Justice Centre
Bloemfontein Justice Centre, Bloemfontein

For Respondent:
G C Nel (and A Rossouw) (Heads of argument
prepared by G C Nel)
Instructed by:
Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria
Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

2 September 2016

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

Monye v S (107/16) ZASCA 111 (02 September 2016)

MEDIA STATEMENT

Today, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed an appeal by Mr Ambrose Monye and Mr
Andre Gouws, against sentences of life imprisonment handed down by the Gauteng Division,
Pretoria, following on a conviction of murder.

The issue before the SCA was whether the court a quo was correct in applying the minimum
sentence of life imprisonment, or whether it should have found that substantial and compelling
circumstances existed justifying a departure from that minimum sentence.

The appellants, along with two others, were convicted of the murder of Ms Chanelle Henning, who
was shot dead in 2011, outside the crèche which her four year old son was attending at the time.  The
appellants were convicted on the basis that the killing was a contract killing, and they had acted as
the middlemen who had planned, negotiated and arranged the murder.

As this was a premeditated murder, the minimum sentence was life imprisonment.  However, the
appellants argued before the SCA that the court a quo had erred, and should have departed from the
minimum sentence on the basis that substantial and compelling circumstances existed.  These were
primarily that the appellants had shown remorse, admitted their guilt, and were willing to co-operate
with the police in their investigations and to testify in the anticipated trial of the alleged true instigator
of the murder, being the husband of the deceased.

The SCA rejected this argument.  The appellants had both pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder,
the trial was conducted on that basis at all times, and it was only after they were convicted that they

changed their version of events.  The SCA held that their about turn was not a sign of remorse, but
merely an opportunistic attempt to avoid the minimum sentence.  Their approach in this regard also
differed markedly from the other two persons who were convicted, who had co-operated with the
State from the start and entered into plea and sentence agreements.

The SCA accordingly upheld the sentences imposed, concluding that departing from the minimum
sentence would:
‘send out a wrong message and ignore the elements of deterrence and retribution that are so important in cases
of this kind. I am not satisfied that in the circumstances of this case their about-turn is so weighty as to qualify as
a substantial and compelling circumstance and to justify a sentence less than imprisonment for life.’

--- ends ---