They Meant to Kill,” Prosecutor Tells Court

MASERU — The prosecution has told the High Court that the two soldiers accused of killing Lisebo Tang did not fire their weapons by mistake or out of fear, but with a clear and deliberate intention to take lives.

Delivering closing arguments on Tuesday, Advocate Motene Rafoneke said the evidence before the court shows that the shooting was intentional and calculated, not an act of self-defence.

The case is being heard before Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane, with Sergeant Tjekane Sebolai and Private Selone Ratsiu standing trial for murder, attempted murder and malicious damage to property.

The charges stem from a fatal shooting that occurred on May 9, 2014 near the home of retired army commander Tlali Kamoli, where the two accused had been assigned night duty.

Tang died after the soldiers allegedly opened fire on the vehicle she was travelling in with Tsépo Jane, who survived with injuries. Prosecutors say the car was also extensively damaged by bullets during the attack.

In his submissions, Rafoneke urged the court to focus on the manner and intensity of the shooting, arguing that the number of rounds fired and the type of weapons used leave little room for doubt about the accused’s intentions.

“Our submission is that when the accused shot at the vehicle, there was intention to kill whoever was inside,” he told the court.

He stressed that the soldiers were armed with AK-47 rifles, which he described as “war weapons” designed for combat situations rather than routine security duties.

According to the prosecution’s breakdown of the evidence, the vehicle was struck by 42 bullet holes while stationary. The two accused reportedly discharged a total of 24 rounds between them, with one accounting for 10 shots and the other 14.

To the state, those figures are telling.

Rafoneke argued that such concentrated and sustained gunfire could not have been meant merely to disable a vehicle or scare off its occupants. Instead, he said, it showed a deliberate effort to eliminate anyone inside.

“The manner in which the shooting was executed disregarded whether the occupants of the vehicle survived or not,” he said.

He further dismissed any suggestion that the soldiers acted in self-defence. For a self-defence claim to succeed, he argued, there must be an immediate and real threat to life. In this case, he said, no such danger existed.

“There was no imminent danger against the accused,” he maintained, adding that the use of lethal force was neither necessary nor justified.

The prosecutor told the court that both men actively participated in the shooting and that there was sufficient evidence linking each of them directly to the attack. He urged the judge to find them guilty on all counts.

However, the defence has consistently presented a different version of events.

Earlier testimony indicated that the soldiers believed they were responding to a security threat. Evidence before the court revealed that the vehicle matched a description contained in what was referred to as a “Red Alert,” which warned of a white four-by-four vehicle allegedly involved in bombing incidents.

According to this account, the accused suspected the occupants might be dangerous individuals targeting the residence of the former commander.

The defence also argued that Tang and Jane ignored instructions to exit the vehicle and identify themselves, behaviour that allegedly heightened the soldiers’ suspicions. The accused reportedly interpreted the situation as hostile and acted under standing orders.

One such order, quoted during proceedings, instructed soldiers to “capture the enemy, if it resists or flees, eliminate it.”

The defence has suggested that the accused were simply following protocol in what they believed was a volatile environment.

But the prosecution insists this explanation does not justify the level of force used.

Rafoneke argued that even if the vehicle raised suspicion, the response should have been measured and proportionate. Firing dozens of rounds at a stationary car, he said, could not be considered reasonable action by trained professionals.

“This was not an accident. This was not panic. This was a conscious decision,” he said, urging the court to treat the case as a straightforward instance of unlawful killing.

The matter has stretched over several years and has already seen one accused discharged. Private Kopano Matsoso, who was initially charged alongside Sebolai and Ratsiu, was acquitted in 2020 after the court found no evidence linking him to the offences.

His acquittal narrowed the focus to the two remaining accused.

For Tang’s family, the proceedings represent a long search for accountability, while for the accused, the stakes could not be higher, as convictions on the charges could carry severe penalties.

As closing arguments wrap up, the case now rests in the hands of the court.

Chief Justice Sakoane is expected to weigh whether the shooting was a split-second response to a perceived threat or, as the prosecution contends, an intentional act aimed at killing the occupants of the vehicle.

The judgment, when delivered, is likely to have lasting implications not only for the accused but also for how security forces respond to suspected threats in the future.