Trial set for March as Brit denied bail again
Tuesday, February 18, 2025 | 510 Views |
Francistown High Court
Holland, who holds both British and Zimbabwean passports, was again remanded in custody last Thursday by Principal Magistrate Tshepo Magetse. According to Magetse, the accused was first brought before court on June 5, 2023, where he was initially remanded in custody. He was subsequently granted bail on July 19, 2023. The magistrate further stated that at the time of granting bail, the primary consideration was that he required rehabilitation in a private institution in South Africa. He also said that following Holland’s return from rehabilitation, he did make an appearance before the court.
However, Magetse stated that from July 18, 2024, Holland failed to attend further proceedings and remained at large until his apprehension on January 21, 2025. Additionally, the magistrate stated that according to the defence counsel, the present application is primarily based on some grounds, which warrant the accused’s admission to bail pending trial. He stated that the fundamental principle governing bail is that an accused person must guarantee their attendance before the court whenever required. This obligation is absolute and non-negotiable. "The accused, at the time of his initial bail grant, was fully aware of his legal duty to appear before the court. Despite this, he failed to do so, not just for a month or two but for nearly a year," Magetse stated. "His prolonged absence cannot be excused by mere engagement with the police when he deliberately neglected the one place where his presence mattered most,” he added. Secondly, he stated that a reasonable person in his shoes is bound to ask: What has changed to warrant confidence that, if granted a second chance, the accused won't abscond once again? This question is crucial, as the accused’s prior conduct doesn't inspire confidence that he will now comply with bail conditions should he be re-admitted, he added.
It is a warning flare to every Motswana who logs onto social media. As a country, we have reached a point where the line between robust debate and outright destruction has become dangerously blurred. At face value, Mabeo’s response, which seeks an apology and threat of a defamation suit, might seem severe to some. But we cannot ignore the context. The comment in question did not offer a policy critique or question a political decision.It...