Rapist and murderer Dhevapragasen Munsamy's hopes of being released on day parole appear to have been dashed.
|||Durban - Child rapist and murderer Dhevapragasen (Dean) Munsamy’s hopes of being released on Thursday on day parole appear to have been dashed.
Munsamy is imprisoned in Ncome Maximum Security Prison in Vryheid for the abduction, rape and murder of his former neighbour, 10-year-old Natasha Sookdeo of Chatsworth.
On June 18, when he had served 18 years of an effective 30-year jail sentence, he was told his request for parole had been granted for a period of six months, starting on Thursday.
The child’s mother, Sharon Jeenabhai, who was present at the recent parole hearing, was outraged at the outcome and immediately made a desperate bid to stop Munsamy, who had lived three doors away from her, from being released.
On June 25 her attorney, Simrithi Sharma, filed an application on her behalf to have the parole decision reviewed.
Sharma said on Wednesday that a prisoner could not be released until the review was finalised.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Correctional Services, Nokuthula Zikhali, confirmed on Wednesday that Munsamy’s parole matter had not yet been finalised, and that “the option of day parole is still in process”.
Zikhali could not confirm the date Munsamy would be released.
She said the main purpose of day parole was for an offender to go out in search of a job.
“In this matter, we are still looking for a correctional centre that accommodates day parolees.”
After Munsamy’s successful parole application, Jeenabhai started another national petition to stop his release.
In 1995, 10-year-old Natasha was on her way to buy sweets for a school outing when she was kidnapped, raped and murdered.
In her affidavit opposing parole, Jeenabhai said nothing had changed since the parole board’s decision in January last year when, she said, it described Munsamy as being “notorious”.
She said the fact that an offender was eligible for parole did not mean it should be granted.
“Parole is not a right. Rehabilitation starts from within and the offender must take responsibility for the crime that was committed,” she said in the affidavit. “Munsamy has not been honest about the crime he committed.”
She said it was not possible for someone who had not accepted the offence to take responsibility for it.
“I have a right to know what exactly happened to my baby but Munsamy is preventing me from this.
“He was found to be a liar (at the trial) and at the parole hearing on June 18 he told the parole board that whatever he said at the trial was a lie,” Jeenabhai said.
The version of events given at the hearing, she added, was a completely different version to that presented at the trial.
She said Munsamy had claimed he was drunk on the day of the rape and murder and that he had been an alcoholic since he was 14. He was 18 at the time he was sentenced.
She said Munsamy had further claimed that Natasha approached him to ask for something and that he could remember strangling her.
He said he had tried to have intercourse with Natasha but could not because he was too drunk, she added.
Jeenabhai said that when Sharma addressed the board on this new version, she was told she could not go into the details of the crime.
She appealed for a review of the board’s decision because she felt Munsamy was not remorseful, he had not accepted his offences, and the psychologist and social worker’s reports were not a fair assessment.
She said Munsamy had only seen a psychologist three times since his incarceration.
Said Jeenabhai: “The release of (Munsamy) is tantamount to a slap on my face and the face of my child Natasha.”
noelene.barbeau@inl.co.za
Daily News