MASERU
The long-running corruption case involving MatlakengMember of Parliament Dr Mahali Phamotse has once again hit a standstill after the High Court sharply ruled that the matter is far from ready to proceed this week.
Presiding Judge, Justice Molefi Makara, made it clear that he would not set a hearing date until every document required for the trial had been properly handed to the defence. The judge stressed that the court cannot allow a trial of this magnitude to begin when critical paperwork is either missing or unreadable.
The case, which also involves co-accused ‘MapasekaKolotsane and Ratšiu Majara, was expected to make procedural progress. Instead, the court was met with a fresh wave of disputes over incomplete discovery, the crucial process where the prosecution must provide the defence with all documents, witness statements and evidence intended for use at trial.
During the brief appearance, Advocate Peleha Joala, representing the prosecution, informed the court that the defence had raised serious concerns.
According to him, the defence teams had discovered that some witness statements were never handed over. Worse still, some of the documents already submitted were so faint or unclear that the defence could not properly read or use them.
He acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and agreed that it could not be ignored or downplayed. Joala then committed himself before the court to follow up urgently with the defence. He promised to ensure that all missing documents are delivered and that the illegible papers are replaced with clear, readable versions.
Justice Makara did not mince his words. After hearing both sides, he stated firmly that the matter is simply not ready for hearing. He explained that it would be unfair and procedurally improper to push forward when the defence has not been given all the material they need to prepare.
He went on to emphasise that discovery is not a mere formality; it is a cornerstone of a fair trial. Without it, the defence would be left in the dark, unable to challenge the State’s evidence or understand the case fully. Because of this, the court refused to assign a trial date and ordered that all discovery disputes must be resolved first.
