Two men face hangman's noose
Isaiah Morewagae | Thursday November 28, 2013 16:50
But the deceased’s son, who is also thought to have been the mastermind, former prisons warder Agisanyang Motukwa, got only 25 years. His belief in witchcraft saved him.
When condemning Daniel Sime and Gaolatlhe Thusang to the gallows Justice Leburu said the two were driven by greed to murder Motlhankana Motukwa of Ntlhantlhe village in the southern district.
“Having regard to all factors highlighted, both singularly and cumulatively, Sime and Thusang’s involvement in the deceased was purely for financial gain. There were hired by Agisanyang to kill his father and indeed killed him,” Leburu said.
He stressed that the murder was carefully planned and premeditated. He said evidence showed that the three convicts and accomplice witness Modise Sekai went to the outskirts of the village of Ntlhantlhe and sat on top of a hill where they planned and conspired on how to kill the deceased. Leburu noted that the convicts proceeded to the old man’s place to kill him.
Justice Leburu said when juxtaposing Sime’s conduct with that of a similarly circumstanced youth from Ntlhantlhe village, it is not expected of that young man to agree to kill a human being for a fee. “Even if that young man, just like Sime was a primary school dropout and was raised by an extended family, such a young man would not go out of his way to kill another citizen for a fee,” Leburu said.
He dismissed as unfounded assertions that Sime religiously followed without questioning Agisanyang’s instructions. “That is not only far fetched but unreasonable and beyond doubt false. He exercised his free will and decided to assist Agisanyang kill his father.
This exercise of free will was stimulated by financial reward: otherwise if indeed he was Agisanyang’s puppet, he could have joined the killing without financial prodding,” Leburu said.
As for Thusang, Leburu stressed that just like Sime he was lured by financial gain as he was promised P5000.
Leburu stressed that a young man from Thusang’s community would have behaved differently despite all the hardships that he went through in his life.
Turning to Agisanyang who masterminded the death of his father, Justice Leburu stated that reliance was placed by the defence on the testimony of an accomplice witness (Modise Sekai) who testified about reasons why Agisanyang wanted to kill his father.
Leburu added that there was also evidence that Agisanyang consulted traditional doctors to help kill his father, as he believed that the deceased bewitched him and his late mother.
“Arising out of this evidence, reliance was therefore placed on Agisanyang’s belief in witchcraft as an extenuating circumstance,” Leburu said.
Leburu averred that witchcraft, although not recognised by laws might constitute an extenuating circumstance having regard to the cultural morals pervading our society.
All convicts were advised of their right to appeal both convictions and sentences at the Court of Appeal within six weeks after sentence.
Shame Taimu represented Agisanyang while Dumesizwe Mthimkhulu defended Sime and Thusang by Moses Kadye while Rahiman Khan was prosecuting.