Fly has only himself to blame - judges

BAME PIET
Staff Writer | Wednesday January 13, 2010 00:00

 

Justice Nick McNally, Justice Seth Twum and Justice Stanley Moore were responding to the arguments raised by Fly's attorney, who said that his client was not given a fair trial.

Fly maintained that the Francistown High Court judge was biased and rejected part of the defence testimony on grounds that there was a mismatch between his written statement and his evidence in chief.

Apparently the judge had opined that Fly had raised some issues which were not mentioned in the statement. Fly is on deathrow for the murder of his son in Francistown (in November in 2006), he is said to hacked have his son to death using an axe.

His attorney also argued that the court should have called a pathologist to testify whether the deceased died of the wound he sustained.

He further argued that Fly was not taken for psychiatrist examination and that it breached his constitutional right of a fair trial when parts of his evidence were barred. 

He said that the state had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was a planned one, adding that the state witnesses gave contradictory statements.

According to the attorney, the child got hit by a flying axe that Fly threw away at the instruction of armed police officers who were at the door. At the time the incident happened Fly was with the deceased.

He said that fearing for his life, Fly threw away the axe to surrender himself to the police and it hit the wall before it landed on the floor. He said nothing about the axe hitting the child.

The attorney also dismissed testimony by a state witness who said that through a closed window and curtain he was able to see everything that was happening inside the house.

During the trial some witnesses told the court that Fly hacked his son with an axe in the bedroom while he was sleeping and that was the reason the child did not scream. But the attorney argued that the child died in the sitting room after he was accidentally hit by the axe.

The judges however put it to the defence attorney that his client failed to tell him the truth, but instead he told him 'a pack of lies'. The three judges said that Fly was given a chance to state his side of the story but he opted to do it in a manner that was not fair either to the state, the prosecution, to the public and to himself. Justice Twum stated that it was not fair for Fly to get in the dock and raise issues that he did not put in his written statement. He said that Fly was trying to ambush the prosecution in raising pertinent issues that he did not put in his written statement.

Justice McNally put it to the attorney that the main issue was not where the child died in the house but whether he was killed accidentally or it was pre-meditated murder. Justice Moore further put it to the attorney that in his defence Fly said that after throwing the axe, he looked back and saw the child crawling towards the door.

'He did not say anything about the child bleeding profusely or showing any wound or injury to his body. What is your take on that?'

The judges also wanted to know why he did not put the axe down instead of throwing it away.

The attorney responded that the situation could not allow Fly to reason because of the armed police and he was in fear. He argued that there were extenuating circumstances in Fly's case.

For her part, the state attorney Antoinette Kula stated that there were no extenuating circumstances. She said that the conflict between Fly and the mother of the child should never have been extended to the child. She said that on the day of the murder, Fly sent the mother threatening SMS that resulted in her informing the police about her fears.

Kula argued that the differences between Fly and the mother of the child should have ended between the two of them.  She stated that Fly had access to the child anytime he wanted to visit him hence there was no reason for a fight between them. 'Why would you kill an innocent child that you have access to, a child that loves you?' she enquired.

She stated that the facts put before the court proved that Fly was sane (good state of mind) when he committed the offence hence he should pay the price for it. Judgment will be passed on January 28th.