Mbabane – Former Deputy Sheriff Vusi Charles Mncina has been sentenced to a cumulative 124 years in prison for murdering four women and attempting to murder Thuli Mkhwanazi, who survived the Goje Township shooting.
High Court Judge Titus Mlangeni imposed the sentence on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, ordering that all five prison terms run consecutively, without the option of a fine. The sentences are to run from October 28, 2023, the date Mncina was arrested.
Mncina received 29 years’ imprisonment for the murder of Nonhlanhla Thwala, 29 years for Lungile Shongwe, 29 years for Fikile Shongwe and 23 years for Cynthia Khulile Shongwe. He was sentenced to 14 years for the attempted murder of Mkhwanazi.
In his sentencing judgment, Judge Mlangeni said the case had affected the entire country, not only because of the number of people who died but also because of the circumstances surrounding the killings and the near-fatal injury suffered by the survivor.
The judge cautioned against sentencing in anger, citing the late former Chief Justice M.C.B. Maphalala’s judgment in R v Goodman Mngometulu. He said courts had to balance the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances of the offender and the interests of society when deciding on an appropriate sentence.
Judge Mlangeni described the incident as an act of extreme callousness, saying it claimed four lives, three of them from the same family. He said the loss had plunged the affected family into an emotional abyss that words could hardly describe.
The judgment highlighted the impact of murder on families, particularly children who lose a parent’s presence, guidance and love and, in some cases, a source of livelihood.
The judge said the offences also had to be considered against the background of persistent violent crime in Eswatini, particularly murder. He noted that the constitutional right to life, protected under Section 15 of the Constitution, had been taken from the four deceased women through Mncina’s actions.
Gender-based violence
Judge Mlangeni also addressed gender-based violence, saying the case demonstrated the need for a stronger focus on deterring violent offences.
According to the judgment, Mncina said he had been angered by two men who attended the gathering. However, he did not confront them before they left peacefully. The judge said this did not mean Mncina had any right to retaliate against them, but pointed out that he instead used a firearm against five unarmed and defenceless women.
The women pleaded for mercy during the attack, according to the judgment. Judge Mlangeni said the circumstances called for greater emphasis on general deterrence to discourage potential offenders from committing similar crimes.
He said the courts had gradually increased sentences for murder over the decades, from about five years in cases during the 1970s to 40 years in Muzi Petros Khumalo v Rex and 50 years in R v Sipho Shongwe. However, he noted that both cases involved single murders, while Mncina’s case involved four murders and an attempted murder.
Despite the increase in sentences, the judge said murder cases continued to feature frequently in the courts. He observed that on an average motion court day, a judge could deal with at least 10 bail applications relating to murder.
He said courts were society’s last beacon of hope and needed to respond decisively to violent crime, while taking the particular circumstances of each case into account.
Consecutive sentences
The court considered whether the sentences should run concurrently, as requested by the defence, or consecutively.
Judge Mlangeni referred to Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of 1938, which gives courts discretion to determine whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. He also considered the Supreme Court judgment in DPP v Ntuthuko Michael Dlamini, which addressed the court’s discretion in this regard.
The judge said concurrent sentences could produce outcomes that failed to reflect the seriousness of multiple offences and the separate losses suffered by victims and their families. He used the example of a person who detonates a bomb in a busy shopping mall, killing 100 people, to illustrate how concurrent sentences could fail to account adequately for each life lost.
In Mncina’s case, Judge Mlangeni decided that the sentences should run consecutively because the offences were serious both individually and collectively.
He took into account that three of the deceased women belonged to the same family and that Mncina knew this at the time. The judge also considered that the women pleaded for mercy, that Mncina did not assist them after the shooting and that he used a firearm against vulnerable and defenceless victims.
Personal circumstances
The court was informed that Mncina was a first offender. Judge Mlangeni said this factor could hardly count in his favour because he had committed five serious offences in a single incident.
Mncina was about 45 years old when the crimes were committed, was married and had minor children attending school. The judge acknowledged that his children would no longer have the opportunity to interact with him in an ordinary family setting.
However, he said Mncina’s personal circumstances were outweighed by the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect society. The judge described him as a dangerous person who had failed to control his anger and ignored advice to walk away and allow himself time to cool down.
The judgment also noted that Mncina had acknowledged that three of the deceased women Nonhlanhla Thwala, Lungile Shongwe and Fikile Shongwe had done nothing to deserve what happened to them. Judge Mlangeni said the same applied to Mkhwanazi, who survived the shooting.
The judge said Mncina had brought the consequences of his actions upon himself and had to be kept away from society to safeguard the public’s right to peaceful existence.
Judge Mlangeni said the sentence had to send a clear message to Mncina and potential offenders that society had no place for violent crime.
The Crown was represented by Mr S. Mdluli, assisted by Mr C. Sibandze, while Mr X. Mthethwa represented Mncina.
Discussion about this post