FRANCISTOWN: The screws have tightened for David Holland who last Wednesday caused an ugly scene after he bayed for the blood of a journalist who was taking photos of him.
Holland, who holds both British and Zimbabwean passports, was on Thursday remanded in custody by Principal Magistrate Tshepo Magetse until the finalisation of his matters after he absconded from attending court sessions. In the process, Holland and his parents lost P30,000 after they each bonded themselves with P10,000 to make sure that Holland appeared in court as and when required to do so. "The availability of sureties can only assure the court that in the event the applicant breaks his bond, then the sureties will be required to pay on their bond. However, in criminal cases like this one, the State isn't primarily interested in recovering the money after the horse has left the stable. What is more important is that the accused will be here to be tried in open court and justice can be seen to be done,” said Magetse, quoting from a previous High Court decision by the late Justice Julian Nganunu.
Twenty-five years later, the relevance of this reasoning remains evident. In the instant case, the accused person absconded from court for almost a year, rendering the surety of P20,000 ineffective in ensuring his appearance. As a result, the wheels of justice were halted, leading to significant delays in the trial process, Magetse emphasised. When giving the background of the matter, Magetse stated that prior to being granted bail, Holland had a Domestic Violence Act-related case and ultimately made his first court appearance in the instant on June 5, 2023, for a threat to kill charge but later the charge sheet elevated to the following counts: common assault contrary to Section 246 of the Penal Code wherein it is alleged that he slapped his wife on her face on April 20, 2023; dangerous acts with arms contrary to Section 26 of the Arms and Ammunition Act in which it is alleged that on April 23, 2023, the accused person engaged in dangerous acts with arms by discharging two shots from a 30.06 shotgun in front of his parents and threat to kill contrary to Section 220(1) of the Penal Code wherein it is alleged on April 27, 2023, he threatened to kill his wife by placing a knife on her neck and uttered words to the effect of a threat to kill. Magetse added: In count four, the accused is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to Section 247 of the Penal Code wherein it is that he slapped and kicked his wife, resulting in bruises and injuries, on April 27, 2023, intimidation in count five wherein he is alleged to have intimidated Monalisa Munguire by threatening to injure her family and unlawful possession of illicit substance contrary to Section 4(15) (b) of the Traffic of Illicit and Psychotropic Substance Act.
Following an exception application, the accused was discharged on count six (unlawful possession of an illicit substance). “It is noted that on July 19, 2023, the accused person was granted bail on the strict condition that he was to go for rehabilitation in South Africa after it was admitted that he had a mental health-related medical condition. The accused ultimately appeared before the court on April 16, 2024. As is often the case with marital or relationship matters before this court, the prosecution informed the court that they were in possession of withdrawal statements for counts one, three, and four from the complainant, who is also the accused’s wife...,” said Magetse. On July 18, 2024, Magetse explained, the accused person didn't appear before the instant court and subsequently a warrant of arrest was issued against him. “On January 22, 2025, the police did bring the accused person before the instant court. It was confirmed that he was apprehended on January 21, 2025. It must be noted that after almost a year of absence, the court found itself somewhat missing the accused person’s colourful character. True to form, his presence was immediately felt upon his return on Wednesday, marked by a fracas in the court building. Fortunately, it seems we will no longer have to miss him in action,” said Magetse.
Following the apprehension of the accused person, Magetse noted, the court is invited to determine whether the said should be re-admitted to bail or his bail condition be revoked. The big question that this court is seized with, Magetse noted, is whether the accused defaulted on his bail conditions or not. “It must be noted that the accused person signed his comprehensive bail conditions, thereby acknowledging his bail obligations. However, he now contends that he should have been explicitly told to come to court. This justification can't be entertained," Magetse stated. "Since it appears he wants to come to court as and when needed, the only place where accused persons are explicitly informed about court sessions is at prison. In light of the above, it is evident that the accused person wilfully absconded from court for nearly a year. Having squandered his bail, he has effectively booked himself a return stay at Francistown State Prison until the finalisation of this case, where prison warders and police officers will ensure he is always informed when his presence is required in court; since he now insists on being told of such matters.”
She added: “It is trite law that revocation of bail can be justified only where there is substantial probability that the accused person will not face trial. In light of the accused's repeated absences from court, wilful evasion of bail obligations, and the fact that he only reappeared after being arrested, it is clear that his actions have undermined the principles of accountability and responsibility expected from a person granted bail. Allowing the accused person to be readmitted to bail under these circumstances would likely defeat the ends of justice, as it would send a message that absconding and disregarding legal obligations carry no serious consequences.” In conclusion, Magetse said: “Therefore, in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, the accused should not be readmitted to bail. For the reasons outlined above, the court hereby revokes the accused person’s bail, and he is to be remanded in custody pending the finalisation of this case. In light of the accused’s absconding from court, he is further ordered to pay and forfeit his P10,000 bail bond.
The accused is advised of his right to appeal the instant ruling to the High Court within 14 days.” Meanwhile, Prosecutor Gasemotho Pitlagano told the court that the state would proceed with all the counts save for counts five and six even though there were discussions concerning the withdrawal of offences by complainants. Holland also told the court that his wife, who is the complainant in most of the matters, has since returned to Britain where she is seeking asylum and doesn't intend to return to Botswana. However, Pitlagano disputed that version saying that the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has since received communication from the attorneys of Holland’s wife on Thursday which state that she intends and is willing to continue with charges against her husband.