DPP drops charges against Moroka
Sharon Mathala | Wednesday October 15, 2014 16:48
Moroka allegedly shot the man dead at his farm in Makopong on the night of April 22, 2014, with the former Trade Minister reportedly saying he mistook his victim for a dog.
While initially Moroka could have been charged with murder, culpable homicide or manslaughter, police instead charged him recklessness and negligence, leaving him facing a two-year jail term or a fine.
At the time, police said Moroka was not facing more serious charges because there was no evidence indicating malice or intent behind the incident.
Yesterday, Attorney General spokesperson, Caroline Bogale-Jaiyeoba told Mmegi that the DPP had entered into a Nolle Prosequi in the matter, meaning that no action would be taken against the De Beers boss.
“The DPP exercising its powers under section 51 A (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana and Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, entered a Nolle Prosequi in favor of the accused,” she said.
“The death of Kealeboga Danster was accidental and no person or persons can be held criminally liable for such an unfortunate occurrence. The case therefore, is closed.”
Yesterday, Divisional Commander South, Senior Assistant Commissioner, Oreeditse Mautle told Mmegi that from their investigations, the police were convinced that Moroka was negligent in the death.
“The fact of the matter is that Moroka and the deceased were walking from one end of the farm to the other, when the dog came from the front and Moroka shot at it.
“How the bullet ended up injuring and killing the boy remains a mystery,” he said.
The DPP’s decision is expected to trigger a P2 million civil suit filed by Danster’s mother who contends that the former minister was negligent. It is understood Margaret Danster was awaiting the outcome of the criminal case against Moroka, before instituting her own civil suit.
Mmegi is in possession of court papers in which Margaret raises six issues questioning Moroka’s story. Through her lawyers, Danster points out that Moroka failed to clear the area before he fired the shot, failed to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and also failed to ascertain his target and what was around and beyond it.
Margaret also argues that Moroka failed to ensure that the gun’s barrel was clear of obstructions before shooting and also failed to positively identify his target and the threat it posed on him.
Part of the compensation amount demanded relates to Margaret’s argument that her son, at the time of his death, was in the process of enrolling in a technical college to pursue studies which would have lasted three years.
“The deceased had told the plaintiff (mother) that upon completion of his vocational training or acquisition of employment, he would sustain the plaintiff with an allowance of around P1,000 per month and build a modern house for her,” lawyers’ documents indicate.
Previously, lawyers representing Moroka had not yet formally responded to the P2 million lawsuit.
One of the lawyers at the firm cited in Margaret’s papers was unavailable for comment at press time.