03 May 2017

Trial dates for four men accused of robbery, burglary and theft at Lentsweletau and Hatsalatladi are scheduled for five days starting November 27.

The four are Kitso Modisantwa, Onkemetse Papiso, Katlego Matlhabaphiri and Koketso Dikobe all aged between 26 and 32. They are each faced with two counts of robbery, burglary and theft committed between March and May 2016.

There are alleged to have on separate dates robbed different individuals, among them Ontiretse Peloyame cash and a cellphone valued at P4 900 through the use of violence by allegedly threatening to shoot with life ammunition.

The four accused persons are said to have on May 26  robbed Mr and Ms Mhiko, a couple at Hatsalatladi, a rifle valued P30 000, P20 000 cash and two Nokia cellphones valued P1 000 each through the use of violence.

They are also said to have jointly entered Mr Samuel Mmadintsi’s house at Lentsweletau with the intention to steal.  They all pleaded not guilty before Molepolole Chief Magistrate, Ms Lenah Oahile-Mokibe.

Their efforts to get bail failed as Ms Oahile-Mokibe dismissed them on the basis that they were earlier denied bail by a different magistrate. However, she advised them to elevate the matter to a higher court that has the power to change the lower court’s decisions.

The magistrate further reminded the four that it was highlighted in another court ruling that they were not bail candidates considering the seriousness of the matter and the alleged manner in which they conducted themselves.

 Meanwhile, Modisantwa and Dikobe had pleaded with the court to order the police to release some of their confiscated items such money following their arrest.

Modisantswa claimed the police took away his wallet containing P1 200 while Dikobe claimed he had P1 600 and a belt taken away by the police, and that they were never mentioned as part of  evidence.

Magistrate Oahile-Mokibe ordered the prosecutor to enquire about the allegations and provide feedback in the next mention.

She dismissed the prosecutors argument on why the issue of money was raised a year later, arguing that the prosecutor was not responsible for investigations, but for prosecution and could not know previous issues raised with the investigating officer. ENDS