Notorious drug dealer and kingpin, Fadwaan ‘Vet’ Murphy, denied leave to appeal conviction and 18-year prison sentence

Notorious drug dealer and kingpin, Fadwaan ‘Vet’ Murphy has been denied leave to appeal his conviction and 18-year prison sentence, after arguing the Western Cape High Court had relied on the “strength of suspicion, conjecture, and speculation” to find him guilty.

51-year-old Murphy argued that judge Diane Davis had erred in relying on the evidence of a “woefully discredited” state witness and challenged the search and seizure ruling made by the court, said Eric Ntabazalila, National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson in the Western Cape.

Murphy was convicted in 2023 on a count of managing an enterprise conducted through a pattern of racketeering, 139 counts of attempting to deal in drugs (specifically methamphetamine on the Cape Flats), a count of dealing in drugs and 73 counts of money-laundering.

Murphy and his company Ulterior Trading Solutions, which was used as a front for drug dealing, were also fined R2m.

His ex-wife, Shafieka Murphy, 57, was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for managing an enterprise conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity. She abandoned her application to appeal the sentence.

Murphy argued that the sentence imposed by the court on him was “harsh and induced a sense of shock”,

‘’Countering the allegations made in the application for leave to appeal, Senior State Adv Aradhana Heeramun, argued that the court has delivered detailed, comprehensive, and considered judgements in the main trial, the sentencing and the interlocutory matters which arose during the trial. She further argued it was incorrect to allege that the court misdirected itself on factual findings and that a court of appeal will not interfere with a court’s finding unless it is shown that the trial court was incorrect,’’ said Ntabazalila.

‘’In a trial where every conceivable challenge was made, it was difficult to fathom why the aspect of duplication of convictions was not raised earlier unless Murphy and his company’s legal representative were attempting to set up a constitutional point. That submission was baseless. She also countered, among other points, that the sentencing was the domain that entirely rested in the hands of the court and fully at the discretion of that court. It could not be said that that aspect was not fully considered and that was reflected in the comprehensive judgement on sentence. There was accordingly no basis to challenge the sentence,’’ he added.

The application was dismissed.

 

Done By: Mitchum George