Fake Moneymakers Appeal Conviction, Sentence

Lebogang Mosikare | Monday March 27, 2017 16:59

 

In the past, when convicting the trio of Moabi Sebiletso and Moses Maphika, Principal Magistrate Dumisane Basupi said there was overwhelming evidence against them. Sebiletso and Maphika were sentenced to five and four years behind bars respectively for the offence.

On Friday, the accused’s attorney Chakalisa Gunda made an application for bail pending appeal saying they have prospects of success since there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the court to divert from its previous position.

Gunda said the accused have filed papers that will show that they have clearly argued their case. He said in convicting the accused, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution but the prosecution has failed in that regard.

Gunda also said the court misdirected itself by sentencing Sebiletso to five years in jail on account that he once slept at the first prosecution witness, Kgomotso Butale’s place.  He added that when sentencing the accused, the Court also misdirected itself by not considering that they were first offenders. Touching on the issue of compensation, Gunda said the court erred by ordering the accused to compensate Dumela Filling Station P24,000 while they are simultaneously serving jail time.

“The accused told the court that they are self-employed which will make it difficult for them to compensate the complainant while they are in jail…The prosecution is also not in opposition of the application since the accused have good prospects of success. They deserve to be granted bail pending appeal of their conviction and sentence,” said Gunda.

Opposing the accused’s application, Inspector Mengistu Chigala said all the essential elements of the offence that the accused committed have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

He said although he fully agreed with the defence counsel that they should be exceptional circumstances for the accused to be granted bail pending appeal, their conviction and sentence are still within the mandatory sentence of seven years. “I don’t understand why the defence says the sentence is harsh…We have in our papers filed before court and stated our opposition to this application…I have stated most of my facts opposing this application in my notice of opposition,” said Chigala.

Ruling in the application will be delivered on April 24.