Moorosi Tsiane
THE Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Advocate Lehlanako Mofilikoane, has hit back at six police officers facing murder charges, insisting they have a case to answer and cannot hide behind claims of acting on superior orders.
This follows her decision to charge six investigators in connection with the 2018 death of a Quthing man, Ketsepile Moeletsi, who allegedly died while in police custody.
One of the accused, Senior Inspector (Snr Insp) Tankiso Lethoko, has approached the Constitutional Court seeking to block his imminent remand on murder charges.
In a strongly worded answering affidavit opposing Snr Insp Lethoko’s application, Adv Mofilikoane makes it clear that the Commissioner of Police (COMPOL) never authorised any criminal conduct.
She argues that although Snr Insp Lethoko and his team were deployed to Quthing to reinforce investigations, they were not mandated to commit any offence.
“There was nothing wrong with the COMPOL assigning the applicant and his colleagues to reinforce investigations in Quthing. That was a lawful order. They were never mandated to commit any criminal offence,” she said.
Adv Mofilikoane maintains that the decision to charge the officers stems from Mr Moeletsi’s death at Mount Moorosi Police Station, not from any external influences.
She dismissed claims that the charges were influenced by developments in the related Morolong murder case, stating that the directive to prosecute was issued on July 8, 2024 — a month before judgment in that matter.
Snr Insp Lethoko, however, argues that the DPP has selectively targeted him and a few colleagues while ignoring other senior officers implicated during the inquest into Mr Moeletsi’s death.
“The main concern is that the DPP is not fulfilling her mandate in a transparent manner in implementing the recommendations of the inquest,” he argues in court papers.
He further claims that the Commissioner of Police and the Officer Commanding Quthing Police Station, who allegedly issued the orders leading to the suspects’ arrest, were not called to testify during the inquest.
“The rule of law requires legal certainty regarding what must happen to those who issued the superior orders after a suspect died in detention,” he states.
Snr Insp Lethoko is asking the Constitutional Court to interpret section 6 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of 1981 in light of the circumstances surrounding Moeletsi’s death.
He also seeks an order declaring the Commissioner of Police and the Officer Commanding Quthing Police Station vicariously liable, and wants the inquest reopened to hear their evidence.
However, Adv Mofilikoane has firmly rejected these claims, arguing that the officers cannot justify alleged criminal conduct under the guise of executing orders.
She also disputes Snr Insp Lethoko’s claim that he was a state witness in the Morolong murder trial.
“The applicant was never a state witness and no statement of his formed part of the docket. I believe he raises this issue to mislead the court,” she said.
According to court papers, Snr Insp Lethoko and a team of detectives were dispatched from Maseru on September 24, 2018, to reinforce investigations into the brutal murders of Mamorolong and Liseloane Morolong in Quthing.
Upon arrival, they found suspects — including Mr Moeletsi — already in custody and under interrogation. Mr Moeletsi died the following day, allegedly after appearing confused and disoriented.
His death triggered an inquest under the Inquest Proclamation of 1954, amid allegations of torture in police detention cells.
Meanwhile, in the Morolong murder case, Mr Moeletsi and his co-accused were discharged on 1 November 2024, after the court ruled that their confessions were not voluntary, finding evidence of torture.
Adv Mofilikoane further argues that the Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction in the matter, insisting Snr Insp Lethoko should raise his defence before the trial court.
“The relief sought is not tenable before this court. The applicant has full trial rights to challenge the charges in the trial court,” she said.
The matter is yet to be allocated a hearing date.
