‘If you’re going to kill someone in South Africa, use a gun, not a Mini Cooper’

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Brace yourself: Yet another phase in the long, winding case of Oscar Pistorius, track star turned convicted killer, is set to begin this week.

But it could be one of the most significant chapters yet.

Prosecutors say they will appeal after the double-amputee sprinter was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for manslaughter, known as culpable homicide in South Africa. Pistorius could be released to house arrest after just 10 months served for shooting dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, whom he mistook for an intruder.

South Africans are weary after Pistorius' seven-month trial, which was broadcast live and dominated news coverage and everyday conversation. But there is also a strong feeling of dissatisfaction over the verdict, which is widely seen as being too lenient, and confusion as to why the judge dismissed a charge of murder.

Front of mind for many here is another recent high-profile case, that of rapper Molemo Maarohanye.

Maarohanye, better known as Jub Jub (slang for "marshmallow"), was convicted of murder in 2012 and sentenced to 25 years in jail for killing four children and seriously injuring two others. The musician and a friend had been drag racing through the streets of Soweto while high on drugs and plowed into a group of schoolchildren.

Earlier this month, Jub Jub's conviction was overturned from murder to culpable homicide and his sentence reduced. This means he and his fellow driver will now spend a total of eight years behind bars, including time already served.

Many South Africans have compared the outcomes in the two famous trials, wondering why Jub Jub was considered to have had an intent to kill behind the wheel of his car, while Pistorius, who fired four shots through a bathroom door in his own home, was not.

Trevor Noah, a South African comedian, tweeted during the Pistorius verdict last month that he was "very confused" by the disparity: "If you're going to kill someone in South Africa, use a gun, not a Mini Cooper," he wrote.

One columnist, for South Africa's Times daily, wondered if race played a role in the verdicts, noting that "Jub Jub, a black man who in no way intended to kill anybody, who acted recklessly with a tool designed specifically for transport," had originally been jailed for 25 years.

In contrast, Pistorius, a white man, had acted negligently with his gun — "a tool designed specifically for killing."

On Monday, a national prosecuting authority spokesman said papers will be filed in the next few days appealing Judge Thokozile Masipa's verdict and sentence in the Pistorius trial. The state can only appeal on questions of law.

Legal experts as well as the ruling African National Congress party's Women's League, which supported the Steenkamp family throughout the trial, welcomed the news of an appeal, which follows sentencing last week.

"As an organization, we remain convinced that another court could have justifiably reached a conviction of murder rather than culpable homicide in this case," the ANCWL said in a statement.

The crux of the appeal will likely have to do with the judge's interpretation of "dolus eventualis," an arcane Latin phrase that thanks to the Pistorius trial has entered the vocabulary of many South Africans.

Dolus eventualis has to do with intent, and in this case whether Pistorius could have foreseen that he would have killed someone when he fired four shots into the tiny toilet cubicle, knowing there was a person behind the door.

Judge Masipa found that Pistorius had acted with gross negligence when he fired through the bathroom door, but accepted that he genuinely believed there was an intruder behind it, and not Steenkamp.

James Grant, a South African criminal law professor, writes that dolus eventualis exists regardless of who was behind the door, as in the Pistorius case.

Grant, who is advising the prosecution on its appeal, notes "the inevitable conclusion that Masipa made errors of law and errors of logic."

It is dolus eventualis that also led to Jub Jub's appeal succeeding. In a first, failed attempt to appeal, his defense team argued that evidence had been tampered with, and denied the rapper had been on drugs. 

The second time around, Jub Jub's new lawyer argued that his client had taken drugs, and that the argument of dolus eventualis didn't stand up because Jub Jub couldn't have possibly foreseen the potential damage of his actions, and didn't intend to kill. The judge agreed.

To Grant, the issue is the confusing current definition of dolus eventualis under South African law.

"The definition of dolus eventualis has been controversial for years," Grant wrote on his blog.