Kgang moves to quash corruption charge sheet
Oarabile Mosikare | Wednesday August 20, 2025 06:00
The state alleges that the accused person, Kgang, sometime between November 2023 and May 2024 at Mogoditshane, whilst serving as a member and board chairperson of Kweneng Land Board, used his position as such to unlawfully obtain Plot 2064 Ledumadumane, which was lawfully allocated to Boitshwarelo Motlhabane in 1994, and erected two structures thereon.
On August 15, 2025, Kgang, through his attorney Busang Manewe, gave notice to the DPP of their intention to move a motion to quash the indictment/charge sheet when the matter comes up before the Regional Magistrate on August 28, 2025. Manewe laid the basis for the motion to quash the indictment or the charge, saying: 'The charge is calculated to prejudice or embarrass the client in his defence. The client is charged with corruption, but the specific offence created by Section 24A(1) of the Corruption and Economic Crime Act is called 'Abuse of Public Office'. This is the first defect in this charge. The charge is bereft of clarity and particularity'.
The statement of offence, he said, indicates that the penalty clause applicable to Kgang's case is Section 36 of the Corruption and Economic Crime Act. Section 36 reads as follows: 'Any person who is guilty of corruption or cheating the revenue under this part shall, upon conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding P500,000 or to both'.
Manewe said Section 36 is a general penalty clause for offences under Part IV of the Act, being offences whose penalty has not been specifically provided by the offence-creating section. 'The offence creating section with which our client is charged is Section 24A(1) of the Act. It specifically provides that the penalty for the offence under Section 24A(1) at Section 24A(3) as follows 'Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding P5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both'.'
He said the conduct by the prosecution in this regard 'is calculated to prejudice and embarrass' Kgang by directing the court to, upon conviction, visit him with a heavy sentence of 10 years imprisonment as opposed to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to P500,000 as opposed to P5,000.
He added that it is not difficult to notice that the framing of the charge in this manner is calculated to prejudice and embarrass Kgang because the penalty provided for in Section 24 A (3) is lighter than the penalty under Section 36. They take the view that prosecution is approaching the matter in bad faith in unlawfully directing the court to deal with Kgang based on a harsher penalty than the one provided for in the offence-creating section.
'Secondly, it is not clear as to how the client used his position to obtain valuable consideration. One also wonders as to who gave the client the valuable consideration and what the client was to do on account of his position as a quid pro quo. The charge does not tell us which power or position did client abused and how he did so.'
Moreover, Manewe added, even if one were to assume that Kgang may have taken possession of someone's property and erected some structures therein, it cannot be said that it amounts to abuse of office or corruption. 'Surely, anyone can do that. There is evidence to that effect. One does not have to be a member of the Land Board or its Chairperson to do it,' the attorney said.
He, therefore, urged the DPP to revise the charge because, in its current form, it does not disclose any offence known to law, failing which they hold instructions to move to quash the indictment on August 28, 2025. They demanded to be served with a revised charge sheet on or before August 25, 2025, if the prosecution concedes the points they are raising or advises Kgang's attorneys if the DPP stands by the charge as is, to allow them to prepare for the arraignment.
The DPP is yet to respond to Manewe's letter.