Kabelo Masoabi
THE High Court sitting in Leribe has sentenced 34-year-old Sekhompa Lekhotla to 21 years’ imprisonment for the murder of 19-year-old herd boy Limpho Jopi, whom he fatally shot in 2011.
Lekhotla was 20 when he shot his friend at Ha Maieane, Malibamatšo, in Leribe, on the night of 29 July 2011.
Acting Justice ’Manapo Motebele convicted Lekhotla on the totality of the evidence, finding that the Crown had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of an eyewitness and the failure by police to recover the firearm allegedly used in the shooting.
The case remained unresolved for more than 15 years and ultimately turned on Mr Jopi’s statements before his death, evidence about the clothing worn by his assailant, spent cartridges recovered at the scene, medical evidence and contradictory accounts given by Lekhotla.
According to evidence presented in court, Mr Jopi was working as a herd boy at the premises of a man identified only as Mokete when he was confronted by Lekhotla and two other men.
Lekhotla pointed a firearm at Mr Jopi and fired twice. The first shot missed, while the second struck Mr Jopi in the hip, causing severe bleeding.
Mr Jopi remained inside the house for much of the night, repeatedly asking to be taken to hospital. He was eventually transported to hospital, where he died the following day.
A post-mortem examination attributed his death to excessive blood loss caused by the gunshot wound, which had penetrated the upper waist area towards the bladder.
Dying declarations
Although Mr Jopi died before the matter went to trial and could not testify, he made statements to Crown witnesses shortly before his death.
Justice Motebele found that Mr Jopi was conscious of his condition and believed death was imminent when he made the statements. There was also no evidence that his injuries had impaired his ability to perceive or remember what had happened.
The judge therefore ruled that the statements qualified as dying declarations.
Mr Jopi gave a detailed account of the shooting and described his assailant as wearing white gumboots and a blue blanket.
The description later became significant when Lekhotla was brought before village chief Ntheka Lehoere for questioning. According to the evidence, Lekhotla was wearing clothing matching Mr Jopi’s description.
The court considered the identification particularly important because Mr Jopi had described the clothing before Lekhotla was brought before him and repeated his identification when the accused appeared.
Conflicting accounts
Lekhotla denied murdering Mr Jopi, initially maintaining that the two were friends and that he had no reason to harm him.
He also relied on an alibi, claiming that he had spent the entire night with his mother and was therefore nowhere near the scene.
However, the investigating officer testified that Lekhotla had given police a different account during questioning.
In an informal statement, he allegedly said he had been inspecting a firearm when it accidentally discharged and struck Mr Jopi.
According to that version, the firearm belonged to a man known only as “Reverse”, and Lekhotla had been with Reverse and another unidentified man at the time.
Police were unable to establish the existence or identity of Reverse or find anyone who could corroborate the account.
Justice Motebele found the conflicting versions significant, questioning why Lekhotla would place himself at the scene in one account while maintaining in his alibi that he had spent the entire night with his mother.
His alibi was further weakened by his failure to call his mother as a witness.
No firearm recovered
The defence argued that the Crown had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the firearm had not been recovered and there was no eyewitness to the shooting.
Lekhotla’s lawyer, Advocate Bolane Qothelo, also challenged the reliability of Mr Jopi’s statements, arguing that the witnesses who repeated them in court had not witnessed the shooting themselves.
The defence further questioned whether Mr Jopi, who had remained wounded and bleeding for hours, could have made a reliable identification.
The court rejected those arguments. Justice Motebele held that the failure to recover the firearm was not fatal to the Crown’s case, noting that recovery of the weapon was not a prerequisite for a conviction where the evidence, considered as a whole, established the accused’s involvement.
Two spent cartridges recovered at the scene supported Mr Jopi’s account that two shots had been fired, while medical evidence independently confirmed that he had suffered a fatal gunshot wound.
Murder conviction
The court found that the evidence formed a coherent chain linking Lekhotla to the shooting.
This included Mr Jopi’s dying declarations and identification, his description of the shooter’s clothing, Lekhotla’s presence in matching clothing, the spent cartridges, medical evidence and his contradictory accounts.
The judge also rejected the suggestion that the shooting had been accidental.
Justice Motebele found that Lekhotla deliberately fired a second shot after the first had missed Mr Jopi. Given the lethal nature of a firearm, the judge held that Lekhotla must have foreseen that his actions could cause death but proceeded regardless.
The court therefore found that he had acted with dolus eventualis (foresaw possibility of causing harm) and convicted him of murder.
In sentencing, Justice Motebele said he could not impose the death penalty because of mitigating factors, including Lekhotla’s relatively young age at the time of the offence.
The judge also noted that the prosecution had failed to prove that Lekhotla specifically intended to kill Mr Jopi.
However, Justice Motebele stressed the seriousness of firearm-related violence in Lesotho, saying firearms are increasingly entering the country and taking people’s lives.
He said the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and serve as a deterrent to others.
Lekhotla’s imprisonment will separate him from his wife and two minor children. Before his incarceration, he supported his family through livestock farming.
The court emphasised that Lekhotla’s decision not to testify did not lessen the Crown’s burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the judge’s view, that burden had been discharged.
