Convict faces uphill task in murder-for-hire appeal
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Thursday November 16, 2017 15:37
Motukwa, a former prison warder, was convicted in November 2013 alongside Daniel Sime and Gaolatlhe Thusang for the murder of his father, Motlhanka Motukwa on August 12, 2008 at Ntlhantlhe. Prosecutors proved that Motukwa hired Sime and Thusang to kill his father whom Motukwa believed was bewitching him and also to claim insurance benefits.
Lobatse High Court Judge, Michael Leburu sentenced Motukwa to 25 years in prison, while his two co-accused who were initially given the death penalty, had their sentences reduced to 22 years behind bars by the CoA reduced their sentence to 22 years in jail.
Yesterday before CoA Judge, Isaac Lesetedi, Motukwa applied for a reduction in his sentence. The CoA appearance was his second after unsuccessfully appealing against his conviction.
Lesetedi hinted that the appeal against the sentence was facing difficult odds, noting that when the court handled the conviction appeal, it had not closed its mind to the sentence and believed he had been fairly treated.
“When criminal counts are brought before the appeal’s court, the court could revisit everything and raise points on its own.
“However, in the judgement on the conviction appeal, the court touched on the sentence and actually indicated that the accused deserved a harsher punishment even though the Court did not review it,” Lesetedi said.
Motukwa’s attorney, Kesegofetse Molosiwa, had initially argued that the court had not dealt with his client’s sentence when it dismissed the conviction appeal.
“Under common law, the court has the power to re-open the appeal because it has not heard the matter before. This is an application for reinstatement of an appeal against sentence, which was abandoned by the applicant,” he said. He said although his appeal on conviction had been dismissed, the court could still hear the appeal on sentence. He also said another point that court had to examine, which calls for re-opening of the appeal, is the disparity of sentences between his client and the co-accused.
“Under the principle of uniformity, people who are convicted for offences of similar moral and legal grounds should serve similar sentences,” Molosiwa said.
However, State attorney Rahiman Khan argued that the application was motivated by opportunism. He said Motukwa was alive to the fact that his sentence could be increased and had chosen to abandon the appeal against the sentence. “The application should be dismissed, as the court has no jurisdiction to reinstate the appeal,” he said.
Ruling on the application has been reserved for November 21, 2017.