THE attempt by accused persons in the M5 billion Khubetsoana drug case to have the charges against them quashed before the matter has even reached trial cannot be mistaken for the administration of justice. It is increasingly becoming the norm for criminal cases to be fought – and won – in preliminary applications, rather than in a courtroom where evidence is actually tested.
The accused have asked the Maseru Magistrates’ Court to withdraw and quash the charges, arguing that the police and prosecution have failed to provide a criminal docket, witness statements, laboratory reports and investigation diaries. They further argue that investigations were incomplete when they were charged, prejudicing their ability to prepare a defence.
These are serious complaints, and if proven, the courts must deal with them firmly. Every accused person is entitled to a fair trial, proper disclosure and protection from unreasonable delay. Police and prosecutors cannot be allowed to disregard court orders or drag out investigations indefinitely while accused persons languish in legal limbo.
But an equally important principle must not be lost in this debate: serious criminal allegations should be tested through a full trial, unless there is a compelling legal reason why the case cannot proceed. The Khubetsoana matter is far too serious to be disposed of through procedural manoeuvring, without the substance of the allegations ever being tested. Police reportedly discovered a suspected crystal methamphetamine laboratory and roughly 7.5 tonnes of chemicals associated with the manufacture of crystal methamphetamine, ecstasy and substances linked to khat, with an estimated street value of nearly M5 billion. Allegations of that magnitude demand answers, not technicalities.
If the accused are innocent – as the law requires us to presume until proven otherwise – the best place to establish that innocence is a properly conducted trial: the prosecution puts its evidence before the court, witnesses testify, exhibits are produced, expert evidence is examined and challenged, and the defence gets every lawful opportunity to expose weaknesses in the State’s case. That is how justice works, and what should concern the nation is any prospect of these proceedings ending before the evidence is properly examined.
The case has acquired even greater public interest since Basotho National Party leader, Machesetsa Mofomobe, was added as an accused, facing the same charges as his co-accused and alleged to have facilitated the acquisition of the Khubetsoana premises where the suspected manufacturing operation was taking place.
This is deeply troubling. A Member of Parliament and party leader is entrusted with representing citizens and upholding the interests of the nation; an allegation that such a person played a role in a drug-related enterprise strikes at public confidence in Parliament, political leadership and the country’s institutions generally. We must, however, be careful not to turn an allegation into a conviction. Mr Mofomobe has not been found guilty, and only a competent court, after a fair process, can determine his guilt or innocence. Respecting that presumption of innocence, though, is not the same as shielding the State from putting its case to trial – if anything, the seriousness of the allegations makes a proper trial more necessary, not less.
This country is already confronting the devastating consequences of drug abuse, particularly among the young. Families across Lesotho are struggling with children whose lives have been damaged by addiction, and crystal methamphetamine in particular has become a source of fear for many parents and communities. Drug trafficking and manufacturing are not victimless crimes – they destroy families, undermine communities, fuel other crime, and place enormous strain on the health, welfare and justice systems. Lesotho cannot afford a situation in which allegations of industrial-scale drug manufacturing get lost in a maze of technical applications and procedural delay.
None of this means the applications before the court are meritless. If the prosecution has failed to comply with lawful disclosure obligations, the court must say so. If evidence was obtained unlawfully, the defence must be entitled to challenge it. If constitutional rights were violated, those violations must be addressed. But the remedy for such failures should not automatically be the collapse of a prosecution that could otherwise be fixed and taken to trial.
The Crown, for its part, must get its house in order. The defence’s claims about missing documents and unfinished investigations cannot simply be waved away – the prosecution must explain itself and comply with court directives, and has a duty to prosecute fairly, competently and within the law. The police, too, must understand that a high-profile arrest is no substitute for a sound investigation; allegations that the docket, witness statements and laboratory reports were unavailable must be resolved, not ignored. But resolving those shortcomings should mean strengthening case management, completing investigations where legally permissible and ensuring proper disclosure – not letting serious allegations disappear before being tested.
The public deserves to know what happened at Khubetsoana. Was there an illegal drug-manufacturing operation? What chemicals were found, and who imported, controlled, financed or facilitated their presence? Were the substances capable of producing crystal methamphetamine? And, most importantly, was anyone involved in an attempt to put dangerous drugs into the hands of Basotho? These are questions that affidavits and counter-affidavits cannot answer. Only evidence can.
The accused should therefore stand trial to finality, subject to their full constitutional and legal rights, and should not be permitted to escape a full examination of the allegations through applications designed to end the case before the evidence is heard – unless a court finds a genuine, legally sufficient reason why a trial is impossible or fundamentally unfair. Equally, the State must recognise that justice is not served by rushing incomplete cases to court; competent investigation and proper prosecution remain essential. An accused must be protected from an abusive prosecution, but society must also be protected from the premature collapse of a legitimate one.
The Mofomobe case is therefore bigger than one politician or one alleged drug laboratory. It is a test of whether Lesotho’s criminal justice system can handle a major drug case professionally, transparently and without fear or favour. Let the courts decide on the evidence: if the accused are innocent, let them be acquitted; if the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, let those found guilty face the consequences. But let the matter be decided on evidence – not technical manoeuvring, public relations or political considerations. The nation cannot afford to lose the fight against drugs, nor can it afford to lose public confidence in the justice system while fighting it.
ABC threats reckless