Court discharges Sekai

Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Wednesday June 14, 2017 18:00

 

Sekai has been battling charges of assault and causing grievous bodily harm during flogging incidents that happened in Kgatleng in 2010. He was initially charged with 27 fellow tribesmen who were later discharged following reconciliation between with the complainants. However, the state declined to drop his charges despite the complainant agreeing to forgive him, which forced him to apply to the court for the charges to be dropped. 

When delivering the ruling yesterday, Magistrate Mokwadi Gabanagae dismissed the prosecutor’s point in limine that the application by Sekai is misconceived and incompetent; that it does not meet Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, which states that the court does not have powers to promote reconciliation and that the charges of assault and grievous bodily harm which the Sekai is facing cannot be subject of reconciliation because they are treated as aggravated degree.  

Gabanagae said the law allows the court to accede to reconciliation especially when the two parties suggest it, which has been the case.

“The court has set several mention dates to allow for the process of reconciliation. The DPP had at no point indicated that they are withholding their consent for reconciliation,” he said.

Gabanagae said it raises eyebrows that the prosecution was ready to reconcile until the accused was the only one left. He said what the state is doing is discriminatory, as it is applying double standards by allowing reconciliation when dealing with Sekai’s fellow accused even though they faced identical charges.

The magistrate indicated that a statement of withdrawal and affidavit from the complainant Mogorosi Phillip Rankowa indicating his desire to forgive and does not want to pursue the charges against the accused was presented in court. 

“Throughout the proceedings, the DPP was ready to reconcile. The number of accused persons dwindled until he remained alone. This raises eyebrows. Probably the state believed that the court might convict the accused. I agree that treatment is akin to selective justice,” he added.

Gabanagae explained that once the prosecution has consented to reconciliation, they have no business in what the two parties discuss. He said it is then up to the magistrate to make sure that the terms and conditions of the reconciliation are achieved.  

He dismissed the submission by the state that the charge faced by the accused is aggravated in degree as it only carries a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment. He said the offence could not be treated as aggravated because it falls under offences that have no minimum punishment.

“The order is therefore granted in respect of the applicant. The accused is accordingly discharged.”

Onalethata Kambai represented Sekai while Susan Mangori represented the state.