Moorosi Tsiane
THE two remaining soldiers accused of abducting and murdering three civilians before dumping their bodies in the Mohale Dam nearly a decade ago will learn their fate on 3 August 2026 when the High Court delivers its verdict.
Sergeant (Sgt) Lekhooa Moepi and Private (Pvt) Tieho Tikiso face charges of murder and kidnapping arising from the deaths of Lekhoele Noko, Khothatso Makibinyane and Molise Pakela on 16 May 2017.
The pair are the only remaining accused in the matter after former Military Intelligence commander Brigadier Mphaki Rapele, Major Pitso Ramoepana, Captain Mahlehle Moeletsi, Warrant Officer Liphapang Sefako, Lance Corporal Mahlomola Makhoali, Private Nthatakane Motanyane, Motšoane Machai and Nemase Faso were acquitted by Justice Moroke Mokhesi in August last year.
Moepi and Tikiso were not acquitted because the former allegedly confessed to involvement in the killings, while the latter allegedly led police to the spot where the bodies had been dumped in the Mohale Dam.
Presenting the defence case on Tuesday, Attorney Qhalehang Letsika, representing both accused soldiers, argued that the Crown had failed to produce evidence directly linking his clients to the killings and urged the court to acquit them.
Mr Letsika submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish what transpired at Setibing, where the victims were allegedly killed.
“Now, the question is, do we have evidence of what happened at Setibing? The answer is very simple. We don’t know. And now, if we don’t know, why should the accused be required to give an explanation of that which we do not know?” Mr Letsika argued.
“I submit, my lord, that’s not how criminal procedure works. Criminal procedure works in this fashion, that the Crown bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
He further argued that the evidence presented by the Crown left several possibilities open and did not conclusively establish Tikiso’s involvement in the murders.
“In the current matter, there are those three possibilities and once they exist, the only move that this honourable court is entitled to, I submit, is to acquit.
“Your Lordship will lean in favour of the innocence of the subject where there is no evidence and where there are no facts that would require an accused person to explain himself.”
Mr Letsika maintained that no witness testified about what happened at Setibing or directly implicated Tikiso in the killings.
“No single witness who presented evidence before court was able to tell his Lordship this is what happened at Setibing and so-and-so was involved. Without that evidence, My Lord, the best option is to acquit.”
He argued that Tikiso’s alleged knowledge of where the bodies were dumped could not automatically be interpreted as proof that he participated in the murders.
“The fact that he pointed out where the bodies were dumped does not necessarily mean he committed the offence. He might have known from colleagues in military intelligence, he might have known because commandos were involved, or regular soldiers were involved. These are all possibilities,” he argued.
Turning to Sgt Moepi, Mr Letsika argued that the evidence, particularly his confession statement, showed that he acted under military orders and threats from his superiors.
“Throughout his statement before the magistrate, it is clear that this accused was acting on the strength of superior orders and even under threats of death,” he said.
Mr Letsika argued that, at the initial stages of the operation, there was nothing unlawful about the instructions Sgt Moepi received.
“He was entitled and obliged to obey the orders that he should go to Pioneer Mall. He was entitled and obliged to obey the orders that he should be in the vehicle travelling towards Lekokoaneng. He was entitled to obey the instruction to stop the bus because, at that stage, there was nothing unlawful.”
He said the Crown had failed to explain what happened after Noko was removed from the bus.
“Somebody is taken out of the bus. Where does that person go? That’s the issue. That’s where the Crown ought to come in. The Crown ought to have told the court what happened to that person and how that person met his death.”
Mr Letsika concluded that there was no evidence directly connecting either accused to the actual killings.
“There is no evidence of what this accused is said to have done. Absent any evidence connecting this accused person with the murders, your lordship cannot find him guilty of murder.”
However, Crown prosecutor Advocate (Adv) Motena Rafoneke urged the court to convict both accused, arguing that a prima facie case had already been established and that the accused had chosen not to testify to rebut the evidence against them.
“The court has already found that there is a prima facie case requiring the accused persons to answer. They were required to testify and answer certain aspects of the case, but they chose not to do so,” Adv Rafoneke said.
He argued that the court must now determine whether the evidence already before it, coupled with the accuseds’ silence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding Sgt Moepi, Adv Rafoneke said the court had already found that his confession established a case in relation to the kidnapping charges.
“The court had already demonstrated that there is a confession of this kind and it is our submission that on the basis of that confession and in the absence of any answer thereto, this court can convict on that charge.”
On the murder counts, Adv Rafoneke argued that circumstantial evidence placed Sgt Moepi at the centre of the operation that led to the deaths of the three men.
“By his own confession and words, the first accused participated in taking the deceased persons. He participated in the kidnapping and remained involved until the deceased persons reached Setibing, where they ultimately ended up.”
He said the court should invoke the doctrines of circumstantial evidence and common purpose.
“Having participated in the process leading to the killing and having failed to testify to explain or justify his presence, the court is entitled to invoke the principle of common purpose and convict him.”
Adv Rafoneke made similar submissions regarding Tikiso.
“There is evidence showing that he was present and ultimately ended up at the scene of crime. His presence there ought to have been explained.”
He argued that the accused had failed to cast doubt on evidence suggesting they acted in concert with those who carried out the killings.
“It was incumbent upon this accused person to cast doubt on the evidence of the Crown, which is to the effect that he was there, knew what was happening and shared a common purpose with those who ended up killing these people.”
“Our contention is that the inference we seek to invoke is consistent with the facts, namely that these people were killed in the presence of these accused persons and that they shared the same intention with the rest of those present.”
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Mokhesi reserved judgement to 3 August 2026.
