Background
Cobus Prinsloo, a former geologist, was found guilty 13 years ago of killing his wife, Cordelia. She was struck from behind with a garden spade while she was tending to her plants. Prinsloo received a 25‑year prison sentence, but he has always insisted he did not commit the crime.
The Original Trial
- The prosecution’s story – The court believed that Prinsloo’s gardener, Lucas Moloi, attacked Cordelia on Prinsloo’s orders.
- Moloi’s testimony – He said Prinsloo promised him a house and R50,000 if he carried out the killing.
- The discovery – Prinsloo claimed he found Cordelia’s body two days later, noticing a foul smell and a white foot sticking out of a flowerbed on his property.
- Sentences – Prinsloo got 25 years; Moloi received 18 years.
Prinsloo’s Fight for Innocence
Even after accepting his sentence with a smile at the Pretoria High Court on May 30, 2013, Prinsloo vowed to prove his innocence. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court, but both courts upheld the conviction.
New Evidence Emerges
Years later, Moloi changed his story. He said he acted alone and that investigators pressured him to implicate Prinsloo. This recantation gave Prinsloo fresh grounds to challenge his conviction.
The Minister’s Decision
Prinsloo asked Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, under Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow the new evidence to be considered. The minister refused, saying the matter had already been examined and that the new information did not change the outcome.
Court Review of the Minister’s Refusal
Prinsloo then took the minister’s decision to court.
- The judge’s concern – The court said the minister did not explain why she thought Moloi’s new testimony lacked impact.
- The ruling – The Supreme Court found her justification inadequate and ordered her to give proper reasons for rejecting the review.
- What happened next – The review case was postponed while the minister prepares her explanation.
Where Things Stand Now
Prinsloo remains on parole, having served part of his sentence. He continues to wait for the minister’s detailed response and for the court to decide whether his case should be sent back for a fresh look at the evidence.
Conclusion
The case shows how a conviction can be questioned long after a trial ends, especially when key witnesses change their stories. Prinsloo’s struggle highlights the importance of giving convicted individuals a fair chance to present new evidence, and it reminds us that justice should be open to review when credible information comes to light.
