Gadise was facing a single count of arson following a warehouse fire on December 5, 2018, in Pitikwe, Lobatse in which Yellow Fris Holdings which housed three units including Bears Furnitures was ravaged.
During court proceedings, it was revealed that the fire was intentionally started by someone. The State then deemed Gadise the only suspect in the fire that broke out, but could not make the alleged motive stick.
As the warehouse manager and custodian of the keys of the warehouse, the State believed that they had their man in Gadise, who was deemed the number one and only suspect responsible for the fire.
The State held on to this belief after discovering that Gadise had been sighted near the warehouse on the morning of the fire. The State also told the court that Gadise was only trying to cover up his tracks, because of missing furniture. Attorney Yandani Boko, who was defending the accused, stated to the court that the circumstantial evidence that the prosecutors felt they had was bogus. He said to the court that the prosecutors could not prove to the Lobatse Magistrate Court that the accused was the one who started the fire nor prove that he was the only one who had access to the warehouse.
When reading out judgment before the Lobatse Magistrate’s Court, Principal Magistrate Gofaone Morweng exclaimed that the prosecutor failed to adduce to the High Court that Gadise was responsible for the arson. “It is common cause that there is no direct evidence linking the accused person to the cause of the fire and from the established facts there is no evidence from the prosecution that the accused person was the sole custodian of the warehouse keys,” Morweng said in the judgment. The principal magistrate stressed that the only evidence that could have worked for the prosecution would have been a statement from any individual who had entrusted Gadise with the keys.
He further highlighted that the prosecution side had been speculative about everything. Morweng further outlined that the State failed to bring forward any witness who would attest to its story that Gadise was trying to cover up stock shortage with the fire. “It is common cause that there was no witness from Bears who was availed before the court to testify to the planned stock audit and the prosecution was trying to shoot the moon,” he said before the court.
Morweng added that because the prosecution failed to adduce the court with evidence that Gadise was responsible for the fire, the court had no choice but to acquit the accused. “It is, therefore, a finding of this court that the prosecution has failed the test as envisaged by Section 180(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act supra,” Morweng said. “The accused person Kgatlhego Gadise is acquitted and discharged,” the principal magistrate stated.
