MASERU-The High Court this week heard fresh testimony regarding the condition of Brigadier Maaparankoe Mahao’s body shortly after he was pronounced dead, with a defence witness describing one of the visible injuries as “an insignificant minor scratch” on his forehead.
Retired Colonel ’Matšotetsi Tlelai took the stand as part of the defence case in the ongoing trial of nine members of the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) who stand accused of murdering Mahao. Her evidence focused on what she personally observed at Makoanyane Military Hospital on June 25, 2015, the day Mahao was shot at Ha Lekete in Mokema.
The accused include former army commander, Lieutenant General Tlali Kamoli, alongside eight other soldiers. They face charges of murder, attempted murder, theft and unlawful damage to property. All have pleaded not guilty.
Colonel Tlelai told the court that she was present at Makoanyane Military Hospital while police officers were examining Mahao’s body. It was during that time, she said, that she made her own observations of the injuries.
Among the injuries she noticed was what she described as a minor abrasion on the deceased’s forehead. She characterised it as insignificant in nature.
In addition to the mark on the forehead, she told the court that she observed a wound on one of Mahao’s hands. She also saw what appeared to be a bullet hole.
Her testimony sought to clarify the physical condition of the deceased at the time the body was being examined. The defence has consistently maintained that Mahao was shot during what it describes as a lawful operation aimed at suppressing mutiny within the army. The prosecution, however, contends that the killing was deliberate.
One of the more contentious aspects of the witness’s evidence concerned the condition of Mahao’s clothing.
During her testimony, Colonel Tlelai was confronted with evidence suggesting that the deceased’s clothes had been washed. Asked to comment, she said she could not deny that possibility because the clothes were wet when she saw them.
“I cannot deny that because they were wet,” she told the court.
However, she added that she did not ask anyone why the clothes were wet, nor did anyone provide her with an explanation.
The issue of whether the clothes were washed has emerged as a significant point in the trial. If proven, it could have implications for forensic evidence and the preservation of the crime scene.
The defence has not conceded that any wrongdoing occurred in the handling of the body or clothing, and the matter remains one of the many factual disputes the court must resolve.
