Convicted serial murderer, Simba Mampori, has pleaded with the Court of Appeal (CoA) to overturn his capital punishment saying he committed the offence after he was provoked by the deceased.
Arguing his case before the appeals court judges this morning, Mampori who is on death row, told the court that his victim called him a ‘useless Mokalaka’ and that he was supporting a child that’s not his. He was appearing before a bench was made up of Justices Chris Gabanagae (acting), Leatile Dambe and Reuben Lekorwe. The former Botswana Defence Force commando allegedly murdered four women whom mostly were suspected to be his girlfriends. In his latest appeal, Mampori is attempting to overturn the sentence for the murder of Tshwarelo Moruti who he stabbed 12 times, further hitting her with a stone back in 2019.
The convict, who is represented by attorney Phil Leitshamo, said he believes there are extenuating circumstances in his case. The High Court had ruled that there were no extenuating circumstances hence the death penalty. “We are appealing the sentence on two grounds. We believe there was misdirection by the lower court that there were no extenuating circumstances. “Secondly, the court did not exercise impartiality when it allowed emotions of a pathologist to influence its decision,” Leitshamo said. The attorney argued that there was misdirection by the High Court when it said there were no extenuating circumstances because the appellant indicated that there were utterances that provoked him. “The deceased said provocative things to the appellant that he took issues with as he was called useless Mokalaka and that the kid who all along he knew was his, was in actual fact not his child but he had been supporting,” Leitshamo argued. The appellant’s attorney added that they believe that there are extenuating circumstances because on the day of commission of the crime, Mampori was beyond drunk. “On the day of the inciden,t they were at the party of his niece and started drinking early in the morning. He also noted that he started taking marijuana, so with that he was drunk and intoxicated,” the attorney argued.
On being questioned by Judge Dambe on the arguments made by the appellant if the two issues raised were presented during the trial court, Leitshamo stated that it was never put before court. “It was never put and was never tested under cross-examination therefore it remains unchallenged because at the time the appellant chose to remain silent about the two issues,” Leitshamo replied. In response Dambe said this could be just a tactical move by the appellant because he chose to remain silent and only starting speaking when the death penalty is lingering over his head. “All I know is that the story could not be true and this is just an afterthought. The appellant was told of his rights and he is the one who decided to be silent,” Judge Dambe said.
Leitshamo argued that though it was not challenged, the CoA should not disregard it. The appellant added that there were extenuating circumstances as there was no impartiality by the lower court. “It was not necessary for the court to have said what it said. How can the lower court talk about the emotions of the pathologists in their judgment,” he argued. However the three judges stated that the appellant was just clutching at straws. “The judgment said that the gravity of the injuries made him emotional and the argument would be strong if the judge was the one being emotional,” Judge Lekorwe said. For his part, State prosecutor Mmapatsi Tshimologo rallied behind the judges' reasoning and supported them that all arguments that have been submitted today by the appellant were just afterthoughts.
The convict, who is represented by attorney Phil Leitshamo, said he believes there are extenuating circumstances in his case. The High Court had ruled that there were no extenuating circumstances hence the death penalty. “We are appealing the sentence on two grounds. We believe there was misdirection by the lower court that there were no extenuating circumstances. “Secondly, the court did not exercise impartiality when it allowed emotions of a pathologist to influence its decision,” Leitshamo said. The attorney argued that there was misdirection by the High Court when it said there were no extenuating circumstances because the appellant indicated that there were utterances that provoked him. “The deceased said provocative things to the appellant that he took issues with as he was called useless Mokalaka and that the kid who all along he knew was his, was in actual fact not his child but he had been supporting,” Leitshamo argued. The appellant’s attorney added that they believe that there are extenuating circumstances because on the day of commission of the crime, Mampori was beyond drunk. “On the day of the inciden,t they were at the party of his niece and started drinking early in the morning. He also noted that he started taking marijuana, so with that he was drunk and intoxicated,” the attorney argued.
On being questioned by Judge Dambe on the arguments made by the appellant if the two issues raised were presented during the trial court, Leitshamo stated that it was never put before court. “It was never put and was never tested under cross-examination therefore it remains unchallenged because at the time the appellant chose to remain silent about the two issues,” Leitshamo replied. In response Dambe said this could be just a tactical move by the appellant because he chose to remain silent and only starting speaking when the death penalty is lingering over his head. “All I know is that the story could not be true and this is just an afterthought. The appellant was told of his rights and he is the one who decided to be silent,” Judge Dambe said.
Leitshamo argued that though it was not challenged, the CoA should not disregard it. The appellant added that there were extenuating circumstances as there was no impartiality by the lower court. “It was not necessary for the court to have said what it said. How can the lower court talk about the emotions of the pathologists in their judgment,” he argued. However the three judges stated that the appellant was just clutching at straws. “The judgment said that the gravity of the injuries made him emotional and the argument would be strong if the judge was the one being emotional,” Judge Lekorwe said. For his part, State prosecutor Mmapatsi Tshimologo rallied behind the judges' reasoning and supported them that all arguments that have been submitted today by the appellant were just afterthoughts.