MASERU
The High Court through its Judge ‘Maliepollo Makhetha pointed out that the executive should rather support the judiciary to live up to its mandate of administering justice than disobey court orders.
Makhetha said this after the court was informed that Selibe Mochoboroane, one of the accused persons in a treason case, who is also Minister of Health had left the country to China on an official trip and will be back on Saturday 4th of May 2024.
The scheduled court appearance is part of a series in the trial involving him. Mothetjoa Metsing of the Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD), retired army commander Lieutenant General Tlali Kamoli, and three other soldiers.
His lawyer, Kings Counsel (KC) Motiea Teele informed the court that he was bound to seek postponement of the trial after agreeing with the prosecution that Mochoboroane’s trip was in national interest. KC Teele also said he unsuccessfully tried to notify Judge Makhetha of these developments last Friday, which led him to request a new trial date.
He added that he had proposed allowing the trial to proceed in Mochoboroane’s absence, but this suggestion was rejected by the prosecution’s counsel, Advocate Motene Rafoneke, on legal grounds.
Judge Makhetha expressed discomfort with the executive’s decision to send minister Mochoboroane to China, regardless of his pending court case. Makhetha said Mochoboroane seemed to place executive order above judicial ones which she said was regrettable.
“It look as if that the orders from the executive are considered superior to those of this court, which degrades the court’s reputation”, Makhetha stated.
She said she will never allow this to happen again. “It is unacceptable for someone to skip their scheduled court attendance and then come forward with excuses. Should it happen ever again, I will not hesitate to issue a warrant of arrest for the any accused who believes executive orders are more important than those of the court”.
Teele attempted to explain that Mochoboroane was willing to have the trial continue in his absence, in accordance with constitutional provisions regarding the right to a fair trial. He insisted that his client should not be assumed as evading the trial or inconveniencing the court.
“I have no issue with the proceedings continuing in the absence of my client, but we were led by the prosecution to believe that authority dictates the trial cannot proceed without him. I am aware that the Constitution allows an accused to consent to a criminal proceeding in their absence “, he said.
Opposing to Teele’s contention, Rafoneke explained that the prosecution had not consented to a postponement when responding to the request for one, criticising Mochoboroane’s decision to travel to China despite knowing the trial dates.
“It is uncalled for, the trial dates were well-known in advance, and for the accused to make other arrangements knowing these dates puts us in a very difficult situation. We are not consenting to this application but leave the decision in the hands of the court, he said”.
Rafoneke’s suggestion that the court should decide on the postponement was met with condemnation from defence lawyers, who argued that the prosecution should clarify its position.
Advocate Kabelo Letuka indicted that the prosecution should organise its affairs and clearly state its stance to the court. He accused the prosecution of being aware of Mochoboroane’s whereabouts and quietly consenting to his absence. “My lady, the Crown cannot avoid taking a place in this matter. This is their case; they cannot simply leave the decision up to the court when a party applies for a postponement”, Letuka argued.
“I wish to raise another point that also relates to the issue of representation. There was a period when Advocate Rethabile Setlojoane was appearing before you in this very case, alongside Advocate Rafoneke. Just last week, Advocate Setlojoane informed me that there was a request for a postponement by accused number six”, Letuka continued.
“He mentioned that, due to the importance of the trip we have been told he is on, they, representing the Crown, had consented to the postponement. “He concluded by informing the court that although his client was prepared for the trial to proceed if the Crown consents to a postponement, this agreement should be formally recorded to ensure his client can appropriately exercise his rights”. After these argument, Makhetha postponed the trial to May 20.
