New magistrate for Daisy Loo case

OLIVER MODISE
Staff Writer | Thursday July 10, 2008 00:00

 

The Registrar of the High Court, will appoint another magistrate to hear the case. The case was left in limbo after former regional Magistrate, Terrence Rannowane recused himself following his appointment as acting High Court Judge.

Daisy Loo, its Managing Director Moemedi Dijeng, an employee of the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism Frank Molaletsi, former GCC employees, Gilbert Sithole, Frank Stegling and Bitsang Abby are accused of conspiring to defraud GCC following a controversial bush clearing tender award.

Moroka instructed the accused to come to court on 5 August when the Registrar of the High Court, Godfery Nthomiwa, will have appointed another Magistrate to hear the case. He revealed that he could not listen to the case because he had been exposed to some evidential material when he was doing research with the Chief Justice, Julian Nganunu, during the civil case in which GCC was told not to pay Daisy Loo. However, on appeal, Daisy Loo won the civil dispute and overturned Nganunu's decision.

Yesterday, the proceedings began on a high note with sparks flying between the defence and the prosecution. In his submission lawyer, Duma Boko, representing Molaletsi, said that as far as he was concerned, there is no new case against his client. He argued that the matter is still pending before court following Rannowane's departure. He said he was shocked that the Director at the Directorate Public Prosecution (DPP), Leatile Dambe, had registered the case afresh when it was still pending before court.

Speaking on behalf of Daisy Loo and its Managing Director, Dijeng, Unoda Mack said that Rannowane's recusal was worthless because it raised many issues. He submitted that his client Dijeng was first arrested as far back as 2004 and has had the charges hanging over his head for close to five years.

'We had a magistrate until the executive decided to take him away,' he said. He added that this is an oppressive and highly pre-judicial action.

'It certainly raises issues of constitutional rights,' said Mack. He said he was concerned that his clients are not going to get a fair trial. He submitted that his clients are not going to plead because they wanted a permanent stay for the anticipated proceedings if the case is to start afresh.

Dick Bayford for Sithole argued that to ask his client to take a plea would be an embarrassment as the same case is still pending before the same court. 'The case that is registered before you this morning is improperly before you,' he told Moroka. He pointed out that his is a procedural complaint and not a constitutional concern.

Stegling's lawyer, Tebogo Sebego, told Moroka that the only option available is to refer the matter to the High Court arguing that his client had suffered immense hardship because of the case.

In reply, Dambe countered by saying that the concerns raised by the defence lawyers are 'narrow issues'. She submitted that it was standard practice to register a case afresh once a judicial officer had recused himself. She charged that the defence team was trying to prescribe to the prosecution what to do.

'We are back to square one and another magistrate has to come over and start afresh,' she argued. She pointed out that she had no basis to withdraw the case even if the accused had suffered financial hardships.

Dambe submitted that if the accused wanted a permanent stay of proceedings, then they could lodge a separate application with the High Court and not by referencing through the magistrate's court. Moroka said that he could not address any of the legal issues raised by the defence because these will be handled by the incoming magistrate.