Moorosi Tsiane
THE protracted legal battle over the M39 million fraud case involving former Local Government Principal Secretary Lefu Manyokole has taken a fresh turn, with the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) seeking to have the matter reinstated in the High Court.
Manyokole will now wait until 15 May 2026, when the Court of Appeal is expected to rule on whether the case should proceed in the Magistrates Court or be heard in the High Court. The appeal follows a challenge by the anti-corruption body against an earlier High Court ruling.
The dispute arises from a decision by High Court judge Justice ’Maliepollo Makhetha, who ordered that the case be referred back to the Magistrates Court — a ruling the DCEO contends is legally flawed.
Appearing before a Court of Appeal panel comprising Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane and Justices Petrus Damaseb and Phillip Musonda, DCEO counsel, Advocate Jay Naidoo, argued that Justice Makhetha misdirected herself in both fact and law.
Adv Naidoo submitted that the ruling undermines the discretionary powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), arguing that the law clearly empowers the DPP to determine the appropriate forum for criminal trials.
Manyokole is accused of defrauding the government of nearly M40 million during the 2021–2022 state of emergency declared by former Prime Minister Moeketsi Majoro following devastating floods.
The DCEO initially brought the matter before the High Court. However, Manyokole challenged the move, arguing that transferring the case from the Magistrates Court exposed him to harsher penalties and violated his constitutional rights.
Through his lawyer, Adv Mahlomola Manyokole, he mounted a legal challenge, accusing both the DCEO and the DPP of acting irrationally and unlawfully.
“The decision to indict my client in the High Court is legally flawed and unlawful because the DPP failed to give him or the other accused reasons for her decision,” Adv Manyokole argued.
He further contended that the DPP abused her powers under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act by failing to establish key jurisdictional grounds, such as threats to public interest or possible interference with witnesses.
Adv Manyokole also argued that his client would suffer prejudice if the case proceeds in the High Court, citing the loss of his previous counsel, Advocate Salemane Phafane KC, due to the higher costs of High Court litigation.
However, Adv Naidoo rejected these claims, maintaining that the law grants the DPP wide discretion in determining where cases should be tried.
“Section 144(1)(b) gives the DPP discretion as to where an accused should be tried. The law does not require consultation with the accused nor compel the DPP to provide reasons,” he said.
In her earlier judgment, Justice Makhetha ruled in favour of Manyokole, finding that the prosecution had failed to justify its decision to move the case to the High Court.
“The Crown has not placed before this court the jurisdictional facts affecting public interest upon which the decision to indict the accused was based,” she said.
She added that subordinate courts were capable of handling such cases, noting that they had historically presided over similar matters, and ordered that the case proceed in the Magistrates Court.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the DCEO has escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the judge ignored binding legal precedent, including the Ramoepane judgment, and misinterpreted key statutory provisions.
According to the DCEO, Justice Makhetha adopted an overly simplistic interpretation of the law and failed to appreciate the constitutional and statutory authority vested in the DPP.
Adv Naidoo further argued that Manyokole would not be prejudiced by High Court proceedings, noting that the case had not progressed beyond remand stage in the Magistrates Court and no substantive trial processes had begun.
“There was no preparatory examination conducted, and the accused participated in the Pre-Trial Preparation Stage before the High Court,” he said.
He added that the High Court had already assumed jurisdiction under Section 6 of the High Court Act by supervising pre-trial proceedings.
On legal representation, Adv Naidoo said the High Court had facilitated access to a pro deo lawyer after Manyokole could no longer retain Advocate Phafane KC.
Manyokole is charged alongside several co-accused, including former Local Government Principal Secretary Nonkululeko Zaly and former Cabinet Principal Secretary Thabo Motoko.
The charges relate to the alleged embezzlement of M39,959,159.30 in public funds during the flood disaster period.
Also among the accused was the late Disaster Management Authority chief, Makhotso Mahosi, who was killed in a 2023 robbery along with her son.
Several businesspeople and companies are also implicated in the alleged scheme.
All accused persons are currently out on M20,000 bail and are expected to stand trial once the jurisdictional issue is resolved.
In response, Manyokole and Zaly argue that the DPP failed to justify why the case should be heard in the High Court rather than the subordinate courts.
“The court has not been furnished with any justificatory facts upon which the DPP relied when she removed the matter from the Subordinate Court in September 2023,” Zaly states in her court filings.
They further argue that no record exists to support the DPP’s decision to indict, a point they say was conceded by the prosecution.
Manyokole also maintains that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the case was transferred from the Maseru Magistrates Court to the High Court, rendering the decision unlawful.
The Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its judgment on 15 May 2026.
