Maselspoort Resort Attack: How Klaassen Got Away With Murder

Maselspoort Resort Attack: How Klaassen Got Away With (attempted) Murder

The guilty plea by Kobus Klaassen, one of the men who assaulted and tried to drown a teenager at Maselspoort Resort in the Free State last Christmas, could have softened the blow when it came to sentencing.

Klaassen entered into a plea and sentencing agreement confirmed by the court on 29 August.

He pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of a teenage boy, and guilty to the assault of another, after the highly charged incident at the resort’s swimming pool.

The attack was branded racist and caused widespread outrage.

In terms of the plea agreement, the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court sentenced Klaassen to a fine of R20 000, alternatively two years’ direct imprisonment, and a wholly suspended jail term of five years on condition that he is not found guilty of the same charges within that period.

The court also sentenced him to 36 months of correctional supervision for assault and he was ordered to attend life skills and anger management programmes focusing on social cohesion.

In the plea agreement presented by prosecutor Ntai Letaba, Klaassen said he and his family were camping at the resort that day.

When Kgokong Nakedi and his minor cousin arrived at the pool, he thought they were day visitors who were not allowed to use the campsite’s pool, and an argument started over this.

The teenagers and their family were booked in at one of the resort’s chalets.

They jumped over the fence and into the pool.

Another man approached them and started arguing with Nakedi.

The argument became heated and, as the minor moved, the man grabbed the boy by the neck.

The boy punched Klaassen in the stomach and Nakedi went over and removed Klaassen from him.

Klaassen was pushed into the pool during this scuffle. He got out of the pool and wrestled Nakedi into it.

“When in the swimming pool, [Nakedi’s] head was held under the water for approximately seven seconds,” reads the plea agreement.

A bystander jumped into the pool and assisted Nakedi.

Klaassen said in the agreement he knew that depriving Nakedi of oxygen might cause his death, and there was no justification for it.

He said he was remorseful and wanted to take responsibility for his actions.

Klaassen, a mechanic and 24-hour tow-truck driver, said he had staff he was responsible for, as well as a wife and three children living with him.

The head of the penal reform programme at Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR), Nabeelah Mia, said while the LHR would not comment on whether the sentence was fair or lenient, Klaassen’s conduct, including pleading guilty and showing remorse, could have contributed to the sentencing.

Mia said:

Because the person in this instance [Klaassen] pleaded guilty and did not make it to trial and plead not guilty, it works in someone’s favour because there is cooperation with the court.

Jabu Price Moor of Harrington Johnson Wands Attorneys said courts consider the personal circumstances of a person who is convicted; the nature of the crimes, including the gravity and extent of the offences; and the interests of the community when issuing a sentence.

He added that, if the above is upheld, the sentence could be considered reasonable because the court handed a deterrent five-year wholly suspended sentence and because Klaassen had shown remorse.

Moor, however, said the sentence could be perceived as too lenient.

“Such incidents often do not only cause immediate harm to the victim or community, but also perpetuate an environment plagued by fear and injustice.

“Subsequently, one may argue that the punishment did not meet the crime of attempted murder in this instance because attempted murder carries a sentence that ranges from a minimum of five to 15 years’ imprisonment,” he said.

Moor said that even when considering the boni mores principle, such leniency should not necessarily be so readily applied because of the high rates of violent crime in South Africa.