Moorosi Tsiane
TWO more senior police officers have joined a legal bid challenging Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Advocate Lehlanako Mofilikoane’s decision to charge them with the murder of a Quthing man, Ketsepile Moeletsi.
Senior Inspector Molefi Tshabalala and Inspector Rapelang Nkeane have filed a Constitutional Court application seeking to block Adv Mofilikoane’s directive to prosecute them over Moeletsi’s 2018 death while in police custody at Mount Moorosi Police Station in Quthing. They argue the decision is irrational, selective, and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
Their application follows a similar challenge filed last month by Sen Insp Tankiso Lethoko, which remains pending before the court and is being strongly opposed by Adv Mofilikoane.
Snr Insp Tshabalala and Insp Nkeane are seeking an order compelling the DPP to provide them with the full record that informed the decision to charge them, as well as the record of inquest proceedings conducted in Quthing. They also want the court to declare the decision irrational and set it aside, and to review and correct the inquest findings into Moeletsi’s death.
In his founding affidavit, Snr Insp Tshabalala states that he and Insp Nkeane were part of a reinforcement team deployed to Quthing in September 2018 to assist with investigations into the murders of Mamorolong Morolong and Liseloane Morolong at Sebapala.
“Our mandate was confined to assisting investigators who were already seized with the matter and had reached an advanced stage in their investigations,” Snr Insp Tshabalala states.
He explains that upon arrival, they found that suspects, including Moeletsi, were already in custody and were about to be taken for a pointing-out exercise.
“I inquired about the progress of the investigation and was informed it was at an advanced stage and that the team was proceeding to Sebapala with the suspects for pointing out,” he claims.
During the exercise, Moeletsi allegedly led police to his home, where he produced a knife believed to have been used in the killings.
“…The knife still had blood stains,” Snr Insp Tshabalala said.
He maintains that after the pointing-out exercise, he and Insp Nkeane had no further interaction with the suspects.
“After the exercise, we returned to Quthing Police Station. That was the last time we encountered the suspects,” he said.
The following day, the team reported back to their superiors in Maseru, including then Head of CID, Advocate Paseka Mokete, and the Commissioner of Police, after which the team was disbanded.
“That was the last time my co-applicant and I had any interaction with the suspects.”
He says an inquest into Moeletsi’s death was later opened in November 2020 to determine whether he had been assaulted while in police custody. Although both officers participated in the proceedings, they claim they were never informed of the outcome.
“I was shocked to my marrow when, around February 2026, I became aware of a savingram in which the DPP directed that my co-applicant and I be charged with murder,” Snr Insp Tshabalala says.
He claims their attempts to obtain the inquest record from the DPP’s office were unsuccessful.
“We approached the DPP’s office requesting a copy of the inquest record, but our efforts were in vain.”
Snr Insp Tshabalala further argues that the magistrate who conducted the inquest recommended that 10 police officers be charged, yet only six—including the applicants—were ultimately prosecuted.
“It is on this basis that the present application is brought, as the DPP’s decision raises critical issues of lawfulness, rationality, equality before the law, and abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
The applicants argue that although the DPP has constitutional authority to institute criminal proceedings, that power is not absolute and must be exercised lawfully, fairly, and rationally.
“The DPP does not have unfettered discretion. She is bound by law to act rationally, fairly, and in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” Snr Insp Tshabalala argues.
He further contends that selective prosecution constitutes an abuse of the criminal justice system.
“A prosecutor who uses legal processes for purposes other than those intended abuses the criminal justice system and subjects the accused to that abuse.”
