S'brana staff shortage affects justice system

BAME PIET
Staff Writer | Tuesday August 3, 2010 00:00

 

The doctor is one of 26 witnesses in a murder case in which Agisanyang Motukwa, son of the deceased, Daniel Sime, Gaolathe Thusang, and Modise Sekai are alleged to have murdered Motlhanka Motukwa on August 10, 2008 at Ntlhantlhe village.

The attorney representing the First Accused person - Motukwa - said that the doctor has conducted two examinations on Motukwa and due to time constraints, could only avail the report by Friday. The case was scheduled for yesterday and today but the trial dates have been shifted to September 13-16. Among the witnesses are a traditional doctor, a spiritual healer, Motukwa's siblings and one of the accused persons, who has since turned State witness.

Disappointed members of the public who thronged the court murmured outside complaining about the slow progress of the case. 'Ka Modimo kgetsi ga e kake ya tlhola e stwelela, (This case is not progressing,), complained two unidentified women who had attended the case.

Meanwhile, Leburu will pass judgement in a case in which Modisaotsile 'Zola' Kedidimetse stabbed and killed Thabo Mokalake three years ago at Old Naledi. The two had a misunderstanding that resulted in a fight in which Kedidimetse stabbed the deceased with an okapi knife four times. Making the final submissions yesterday, Thabo Malambane of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions stated that Kedidimetse knew that by stabbing the deceased, there was a possibility that he was going to die, or that he was going to suffer serious bodily harm.

Malambane said there was no element of self-defence because Kedidimetse applied excessive force when he stabbed the deceased. He said that the accused has given contradicting statements in his defence and that he has failed to test some of the evidence brought before the court. He said that there was malice aforethought in the case and called for a murder charge for the accused.

Meanwhile defence attorney Shane Taimu argued that the State has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his client was acting in malice aforethought. He said that even the State witnesses gave contradictory statements as none of them saw exactly what happened. He said the fact that some State witnesses have said that the deceased was the one who first brandished the knife, and that he was bent on stabbing the accused, shows that Kedidimetse could have been acting in self-defence. Apparently the deceased got stabbed during the struggle for the knife that was in his possession. 'The witnesses have told the court that the deceased was eager to engage in a fight and the accused was repelling the attack,' he argued.

He argued that there is no prescription on the measurement of force one can apply in self-defence. He requested the court to throw out a claim by the Investigating Officer that Kedidimetse made an admission that he hit the deceased with a stone before stabbing him. He argued that the Investigating Officer has interest in the case by virtue of his position.

He said that Kedidimetse should be discharged and acquitted of the charges with no alternative charge.