Moorosi Tsiane
A defence lawyer in the ongoing treason and murder trial of politicians and soldiers has been accused of being “insensitive” after continuing to vigorously question a visibly distressed state witness during testimony.
The drama unfolded in the High Court this week when tempers flared between defence counsel, Advocate Kabelo Letuka, and Crown counsel, Adv Motene Rafoneke. The confrontation was triggered after a court interpreter accused Adv Letuka of being “insensitive” while cross-examining a key witness.
The tense exchange played out before Justice Maliepollo Makhetha in the high-profile trial involving former Deputy Prime Minister Mothetjoa Metsing, Minister of Health Selibe Mochoboroane and several co-accused. They face charges linked to the 2014 attempted coup and the killing of Sub-Inspector Mokheseng Ramohloko.
Proceedings were interrupted when court interpreter, Makhoathi Charles Mantsoe, stepped in as Sergeant Kamoho Mahanetsa testified. Sgt Mahanetsa broke down emotionally during cross-examination, prompting the interpreter to urge Adv Letuka to exercise sensitivity.
The intervention did not sit well with the defence lawyer, who immediately raised a formal complaint.
“Before I proceed, there is a professional complaint that I would like to lay against the interpreter who accused me of being insensitive,” Adv Letuka said.
“He accused me of being insensitive, and that is a very serious professional charge that can only be brought by the Law Society or even this court.”
Adv Letuka argued that the allegation could damage his professional reputation and demanded that it either be withdrawn or formally investigated.
“I humbly request that he withdraws that statement or that the matter be investigated to determine the truthfulness of the accusation. For this reason, I am not ready to proceed with my cross-examination until this matter is resolved,” he said.
However, Adv Rafoneke came to the interpreter’s defence, arguing that Mr Mantsoe had merely alerted the court to the witness’s emotional state.
“I would have wished that my learned friend did not raise this issue. I feel inclined to act in defence of the interpreter,” Adv Rafoneke said.
He said the witness was reliving a traumatic moment in which a colleague was killed in front of him, making his emotional response understandable.
“The witness is becoming emotional and is aware of that, but counsel insists on an answer regardless,” Rafoneke told the court.
He further accused Adv Letuka of treating the situation lightly.
“He did not stop at that. Even when the court was adjourning, he was laughing about it.
“This witness is testifying about a very painful experience where his colleague died right in front of him, and he (Letuka) laughs about it.”
Adv Rafoneke maintained that the interpreter had not accused anyone but had simply drawn attention to the witness’s distress.
“Mr interpreter said, ‘Please, he is breaking down, let us be sensitive’. He was not accusing anybody. He was alerting the court to a situation where a witness was overtaken by emotion while counsel insisted on answers.”
He also cautioned that such matters should not be taken lightly, noting that legal practitioners themselves have experienced distressing situations in the past.
“Somebody lost his life in front of this witness, and it is understandable for him to be emotional. Compassion should guide us in such circumstances,” Adv Rafoneke said.
Adv Letuka rejected the allegations, insisting he had not laughed at the witness and calling for an investigation.
“He is further accusing me, saying I laughed at the witness. I want that to be investigated.
“He said I insisted on an answer. I think he was in another court because the last question did not come from me but from the court,” Adv Letuka charged.
Adv Letuka added that he had, in fact, shown concern when the witness became overwhelmed.
“The witness went down on his knees, and I asked, ‘Ntate Mahanetsa, what is wrong?’ That is when the interpreter said I was being insensitive.
“I insist on a withdrawal. If that does not happen, I will exercise my rights. I cannot stand here and be accused of things I did not do.”
Justice Makhetha intervened to defuse the situation, suggesting the matter be addressed in chambers during the lunch adjournment.
After meeting with both legal teams, the judge said she had observed unusual conduct during the morning proceedings.
“The interpreter started to intervene during cross-examination and used words that did not sit well with counsel, saying it was insensitive to ask questions while the witness was having a breakdown,” she said.
Justice Makhetha stressed that courtroom decorum and professionalism must be upheld at all times.
“No one is going to be humiliated in this court,” she said.
She cautioned the interpreter against expressing personal feelings in court.
“Mr Charles should never express his feelings in this court. That is not professional. I expect him to conduct himself professionally at all times.”
However, she acknowledged that the interpreter could raise concerns if necessary, provided it was done appropriately.
“Not that he could not alert the court, but he must adhere to professional standards,” she said.
Justice Makhetha ordered the interpreter to report to her chambers the following morning for reprimand.
The other accused in the matter are former army commander Tlali Kamoli, Captain Litekanyo Nyakane, and army corporals Motloheloa Ntsane and Leutsoa Motsieloa.
They face charges of treason related to the alleged 2014 coup attempt against the government of then Prime Minister Thomas Thabane, as well as the murder of Sub-Inspector Ramohloko.
