Article Sidebar
Published:
Dec 29, 2025Keywords:
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright in all material published in PER/PELJ vests in the author, provided that authors grant, by submission of their contributions, permission that their contributions may be shared and adapted without restriction. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
Anyone gaining access, electronically or otherwise, to a contribution to PER, may quote from such contribution, use the intellectual content thereof, share and adapt it, but subject to the following conditions:
you must give appropriate credit, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and
the copyright of the author(s) may not be infringed in any way.
Main Article Content
Parole for Lifers: The constitutional court Errs in Walus v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
M Ntontela
Abstract
Janusz Walus was sentenced to death for the murder of Chris Hani in 1993. With the advent of the Constitution and the S v Makwanyane Constitutional Court judgment, his sentence was converted to life imprisonment in 2000. Walus became eligible for parole in 2005 in terms of the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959. However, his release was denied on several occasions by the Minister of Justice. Following a series of court challenges, Walus challenged his continued imprisonment before the Constitutional Court in 2022. The central issue before the Court was whether there is a point at which denial of parole for a prisoner serving life imprisonment is no longer justifiable by the crime's seriousness and the court's sentencing remarks. More broadly, the Walus case speaks to whether eligible prisoners can justifiably be denied parole on the sole basis of factors beyond their control. The decision is also significant in interpreting the phrase "sentencing remarks" in the parole board policy. While the Constitutional Court made the correct decision in releasing Walus on parole, its reasoning is questionable. The Court erred in interpreting the Parole Board Manual and the law.
