PremiumPREMIUM

Walus parole lawyer driven by prisoners’ plights despite personal costs

Julian Knight says he went into law ‘never to make money but to try to make a difference in other people’s lives’

A child serial rapist has been sentenced to three life sentences for assaults in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumlanga
A child serial rapist has been sentenced to three life sentences for assaults in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumlanga (Gallo Images/Thinkstock)

Though he says he has lost friends because of some clients he has represented, Julian Knight says he will never stop doing the work he does.

Knight is the attorney of record for Janusz Walus, the killer of SA Communist Party leader Chris Hani. The Constitutional Court last week set aside the decision of justice and correctional services minister Ronald Lamola to refuse Walus parole and ordered he be released within 10 days. The government has said it is studying the judgment.

Knight said he does not know what happens next and is not privy to talks behind closed doors in government, or of Walus’s current emotional state. 

“My job as a lawyer is done. When we finish with the court case, that’s where my work ends. I’m not involved in any of the internal proceedings or any work of the government.

We don’t have an 'after tears' ceremony in prison for tea and koeksisters after the judgment

—  Julian Knight

“I’m also not friends with Walus — he’s a client. After the handing of a judgment, we don’t have an ‘after tears’ ceremony there in prison for tea and koeksisters,” Knight said jokingly.

However, Knight said some of the controversial cases he has handled, which are sometimes political, have cost him friendships.

“I’ve lost a lot of friends because people questioned why I acted for someone like Eugene de Kock, but my view has always been if someone breaks a friendship because of a person I’m representing, what were their motives of being friends with me?” he said.

Knight told TimesLIVE Premium he has a special interest in advancing the rights of prisoners because they are the most marginalised members of society.

“They are desperate people. Families forget about them, and they basically have no one. What rights do they have in prison?” he asked.

With each case that lands on his desk, Knight said, his focus is on getting a positive result for his clients. He also hopes the cases make a difference to other prisoners, not just the client he is representing at the time. 

“My intention to get into law was never to make money but to try to make a difference in other people's lives,” he said. 

Knight specialises in parole hearings, a passion he says he has followed since opening his law firm in 1994. Some of his high-profile cases include Oscar Pistorius and Clive Derby-Lewis’s parole hearings.

Derby-Lewis was also serving a life sentence for Hani's murder. He died 18 months after being released from prison on medical parole.

Recently, Knight has represented Pistorius, who becomes eligible for parole in March next year. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein turned down Pistorius’s application for parole and clarified his minimum detention period before consideration for parole.

Knight said he had learnt that “tough cases make bad law”. 

What security risk does a computer with no modem pose? This is our argument, and the case will be heard some time next year

—  Julian Knight

“Look at the Walus matter. Because of who he was and who he killed, everyone was bending the law to suit a political outcome,” he said.

Knight said he is pleased with the apex court's judgment and said it would pave the way for other prisoners who are serving life sentences but are eligible for parole. 

“For example, prisoners who were sentenced/committed crimes before October 1 2004 have a different minimum consideration date for parole. They don’t have to serve 25 years before being considered.”

Knight is also representing former Boeremag members fighting  to access computers in their prison cells for study purposes. The department of correctional services, which argues access to computers in their cells is a security risk, has appealed a previous high court which ruled in the prisoners' favour.

The case is headed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

“They are in their prison cells for 18 hours and in the [prison's shared] computer room for only six hours a day.

“What security risk does a computer with no modem pose? This is our argument, and the case will be heard some time next year,” he said.

Knight said cases like these are close to his heart and are his contribution to facilitating the rehabilitation of offenders.


Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon