Woman shot in the face by policeman denied appeal by ConCourt

It’s been a five year battle for accountability in the case of Elsa Booysen. She was shot by her policeman boyfriend in an unprovoked attack, which left her seriously injured. On Wednesday she was dealt another blow after being denied leave to appeal by the ConCourt.

The ConCourt verdict stems back to the event in 2013, whereby Booysen’s boyfriend, Constable Johannes Mongo, shot her and then shot himself in the head. Although seriously wounded, she survived – he didn’t.

Mongo, an on-duty police reservist who was at the time employed by the South African Police Service, met Booysen’s at a Pearston restaurant for a romantic dinner. After finishing his meal, Mongo calmly drew his service pistol, shooting Booysens in the face and then turning the gun on himself.

Mongo died instantly, Booysens did not

A gravely injured Booysens survived the attack and pursued legal recourse against the Police Minister, holding him liable for placing the firearm in the police reservist’s hands that night.

Her advocate at the time, Gavin Dugmore, told News24:

“When a firearm is placed in the hands of the police, he is entrusted with a duty to control the firearm and its use.”

In 2015 the High Court in Grahamstown ruled that police minister was liable for the damages Booysens suffered as a result of the attack.

However, the verdict was appealed shortly after the ruling and was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The court found that the Police Minister was not liable.

Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa not liable

Booysen’s last resort was then to approach the Constitutional Court, to appeal the ruling of the Supreme Court. The ConCourt refused her leave to appeal, saying that the case does not meet the court’s jurisdiction.

In a judgment written by Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla and reported by Times Live, it read:

“The case is narrowly framed and brought in the applicant’s own interest. In the result‚ leave to appeal must be refused.”

Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo disagreed with Mhlantla, arguing that the case is fundamentally related to the constitution, stating:

 “He [Mongo] infringed her right to be free from all forms of violence which is entrenched in section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution.”