Former transport officer appeals against conviction

Tebogo Kgalemang
Correspondent | Friday June 4, 2010 00:00

The appellant, who was represented by Duma Boko, argued that the state witnesses were unreliable and that he did not offer to accept for himself any valuable consideration as inducement.

Rebookgama was found guilty of receiving payment in the form of money for issuing people with drivers licences while employed by the department of transport as a transport officer. Boko is arguing that the court should focus on the witnesses instead of his client. He says one witness Moseki Moseki only had contact with Onita Phutego, whom he had given the money to on the grounds that he was acting on behalf of Rebookgama.

Boko said Moseki never gave Rebookgama any money and never witnessed that money being handed by Phuthego to any other person or the convict.  'This witness was aware that Phuthego was facilitating an illegal transaction on his behalf and he was a willing participant in the said illegal transaction. To this degree, therefore, this witness must at the very least be regarded as a suspect witness,' argued Boko.

He also said that a leading actor in the commission of this illegal transaction is Onita Phuthego, who represented himself as the link with the department of transport and purported to make a phone call communicating with Rebookgama. Boko went on to say that many of the prosecution witnesses ought to be regarded as accomplice witnesses adding that their participation was not only limited with the transaction of money but that they went inside the transport department and took pictures and even issued people with licenses. Boko also dismissed the evidence of Boineelo Mokaloba, who is a supervisor at the department of transport, as she outlined that all officials had pin codes to access the system to edit. Boko argued that since she indicated that it is impossible to skip other stages to obtain a license, he questioned the possibility that employees could access others pin codes if they each possessed different codes. He said failure by the prosecution to call an expert in computers was fatal to the whole case as such a material witness would clarify the specific capabilities of the system that was used at the department of transport, at the time of the alleged offence.

The state prosecution counsel, Kabelo Gaonyadiwe, however submitted that the appellant's grounds were of no value and that they be dismissed for want of merit. He pointed out that the witnesses only participated in the transaction of money and whatever happened afterwards was participation of the agent. The judge however asked whether their participation ended with transaction of money because they also went to the extent of taking photos and issued with licenses. The judge said he regarded this process as one single process. In his response, Gaonyadiwe told the court that the circumstances of not calling witnesses accomplice witnesses doesn't nullify the proceedings. 'They are not suspect witnesses,' he maintained.

The state counsel also submitted that there was no need to call a computer expert because the supervisor told the court that everybody in the office had access to the system, which allowed him or her to edit. 'Despite evidence of the supervisor not of an expert, it was sufficient to prove that everybody had access to the code,' Gaonyadiwe stated. It was however argued by Boko that since everybody had a code, his client then could not take the responsibilities of everybody because he was not everybody. 'Why pick on Rebookgama if everybody could access and edit,' he argued. The case now awaits judgement.