What the lawyers said...

GIDEON NKALA
Staff Writer | Friday November 30, 2007 00:00

Manchwe: I shall only deal with facts and I will leave matters of the law to the court. I do not intend to lecture the court on matters of law (Wesson Manchwe, delivering his final submission).

Manchwe: Oremeng has not been cross-examined on this point. What has not been challenged is admissible. I would expect that the accused - represented by senior counsel as the advocate - should have been challenged on this point. (Manchwe addressing Van Zyn.

Magistrate Moroka: What do you say to the view that has been peddled by the defence that there was shortage of land, and that Mhlauli wanted to avoid double benefit which could have resulted when Oremeng could have been awarded a plot in Riverwalk? (Moroka addressing Manchwe).

Manchwe: Oremeng should have been called and asked for his preference especially that we have been told that the land at Riverwalk is more valuable. (Manchwe in response)
Manchwe: It is a principle of good governance that a person who would be adversely affected by a decision should at least be afforded an opportunity, and Oremeng was denied that opportunity.

Magistrate Moroka: This is a case that stands at the junction of criminal and administrative law. I will rely on administrative law to a greater degree.

Van Zyl: That would be dangerous, and it should be applied with caution.(Van Zyl responding to Moroka on the application of Administrative law)
Moroka: Yes, in fact the administrative law standard is lower than the standard used in criminal law.

Magistrate Moroka: It is like hitching a hike to Maun. There could be other vehicles going to Palapye and Francistown and you could use these to arrive at your destination other than saying you strictly want one that takes you to Maun.

You interconnect and this is what I will do. (He was talking about the lack of authority on criminal law on section 104).

Magistrate Moroka: Was there policy on 'first come, first serve'? (Asking Manchwe)
Manchwe: There was no firm policy. That notwithstanding, the department applied this principle.

Magistrate Moroka: Doesn't the acknowledgement and admission that he lied on three previous occasions constitute truth?

Van Zyl: No he had no choice but to admit. Oremeng is no stranger to lying.
Magistrate Moroka: Advocate Van Zyl, I am putting my thought so bare that you can influence. I shall later ask the same of Mr Manchwe.

Moroka: Advocate Van Zyl Mhlauli's it seemed fortuitous that Mhlauli was going to the pharmacy and he was called by Lekalake and Oremeng and that fortuitous meeting discussed a very big plan. How do you explain that.

Van Zyl: It was fortuitous but it seems there was aplan and there could have called him by phone.

Moroka: Was it possible for Eddie Norman to come to court and admit that he and Mhlauli had a plan to share jointly own the piece of land once it was allocated to him. What did he stand to lose if he had made this admission. (Moroka asking advocate Van Zyl)
Van Zyl: He would lose his plot of course. But why would Norman tell us about the telephone conversation too.

Moroka: Lets put these characters on the table (Mhlauli, Goolam,Oremeng and lekalake) and call them fish. How would you characterise them Advocate Van Zyl?

Van Zyl: There is no doubt that Mhlauli is the big fish. The other felows are not on the table they are under the table.Oremeng is not a  small man, Lekalake is a another big player. Mhlauli in commercial terms is a very small man.