Setback for eight cops facing murder charges 

…as they lose the first leg of their bid to stop DPP from prosecuting them 

Moorosi Tsiane 

FORMER Leribe Criminal Investigation Division (CID) boss, Superintendent (Supt) ‘Mabohlokoa Makotoko, and her seven colleagues have suffered a major setback in their attempt to block Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Hlalefang Motinyane from charging them with the murder of three suspects who died in police custody in 2019. 

This after Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane struck their constitutional application off the urgent roll this week and refused to grant any interim relief. 

The police officers petitioned the court to halt DPP Motinyane’s directive to remand them for murder until their legal challenge is finalised. They argue that the DPP cannot proceed with charges before an inquest into the deaths is completed. 

According to the officers, the inquest was never concluded after former Police Commissioner Holomo Molibeli allegedly ordered the removal of the case file from the Leribe Magistrate’s Court in 2021. They are now demanding the restoration of the file to allow the inquest to proceed. 

They maintain that the deceased were robbers who sustained serious injuries while resisting arrest, leading to their deaths. One of them allegedly died during a shootout with the police, while the other two succumbed to injuries sustained during their arrests. The officers contend that the DPP had initially agreed to follow the inquest process in 2021 but has since reversed course. They have therefore filed a constitutional challenge against the DPP’s decision to prosecute them before the inquest is concluded. 

Supt Makotoko faces these triple murder charges alongside Inspector Tšepo Molaoli, Detective Inspector Mathibe Mathibe, Detective Sergeant Abiel Ponoane, Detective Police Constable Bongani Mzamane, Police Constable Tumelo Ntabanyane, Women Police Constable Mpuleleng Lengoasa, and Police Constable Motero Mokhethi. 

The officers are seeking a court declaration that DPP Motinyane’s directive contradicts Section 6(1) of the Inquest Proclamation 37 of 1954, as amended, and constitutes an abuse of court process. DPP Motinyane, Commissioner of Police Borotho Matsoso, and Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa are first to third respondents respectively in the case. 

The officers lawyer, Advocate (Adv) Christopher Lephuthing, engaged in an intense legal debate with Justice Sakoane in an effort to establish urgency in the matter. In the morning session, Justice Sakoane directed Adv Lephuthing to return after lunch with legal authorities to support their case. 

When proceedings resumed, Adv Lephuthing accused the DPP of abusing her powers by withdrawing the inquest docket from the Leribe Magistrate’s Court. 

“My Lord, the DPP is abusing her powers by depriving the applicants of the chance to appear before an inquest. The inquest was already set in motion at the Leribe Magistrate’s Court, but when it was supposed to continue, the docket was withdrawn, and now the DPP is directing that they be charged. We are asking the court to review and set aside the DPP’s decision to issue this directive,” argued Adv Lephuthing. 

However, Justice Sakoane dismissed these claims, stating that the lawyer was making baseless allegations. 

“Counsel, your case is not in order. If you do not understand the law your case relies on, how do you expect me to? You are making serious accusations that the police seized the inquest docket from the magistrate—were your clients present when that happened? Was Superintendent Makotoko there? You are attacking the magistrate, yet they are not even cited in your case. You also want me to prevent the police from doing their job. How can they perform their duties if suspects can run to court every time an investigation is underway?” Justice Sakoane questioned. 

Following a lengthy debate, Adv Lephuthing conceded that the matter was not urgent. As a result, Justice Sakoane ruled: “The matter is not urgent and is therefore struck off the urgent roll. It shall follow normal court processes.” 

Adv Thomas Thakalekoala represented the Crown in the matter.