State never intended charging Pinny
Sharon Mathala | Monday November 7, 2022 06:00
Agreeing with the presiding Judge Mokwadi Gabanagae when he discharged and acquitted her, State lawyer Kentse Molome stated that had she operated with the law enforcement and investigators, Pinny would have never been charged alongside her husband.
Speaking to Mmegi on the sidelines of court and commenting on the judgement, Molome when asked if they will appeal the part of the judgement which set Pinny free, the State senior lawyer explained: “No, not at all. Right from the beginning, we were aware that the evidence we had did not meet the threshold, actually one of the elements of knowledge. From the very beginning, we were aware that we did not have sufficient evidence to prove that she had the knowledge that the offences were being committed.”
According to the state, the only reason why she was dragged into her husband’s dirty dealings was because the crimes were committed by a company in which she is the sole director of. “We were able to tell right from the beginning that the crimes were done by her husband and we were not sure that she had the knowledge that the crimes were being committed. We were not sure if she knew her husband was committing the crimes through her company.
“Had the defense cooperated, we would have not charged her but because the defense did not want to cooperate, we had to charge her because it was her company that was being used and she was the sole director and so we had to charge her. But otherwise the element of knowledge, we did not have that evidence.”
When acquitting her, the judge also stated that the State failed to provide evidence that she took part in the commission of the offence. “It appears her only sin was that the vehicle was bought for her company. No doubt, she had no knowledge that her husband was involved in shady deals. There is no evidence to show that she took part in the planning of the commission of the offences. Infact, little was said about her involvement in the commission of this offence.
The judge further stated that, “when the 1st accused (her husband - Morupisi) bought the vehicle for the company, he was acting on his own. As I said, the 3rd accused (Pinny) did not know that the vehicle was a proceed of crime.” In the end the court discharged and acquitted Pinny of the offence of money laundering.