22 Aug 2019

Accused persons in the National Petroleum Fund (NPF) case escaped jail Wednesday when Regional Magistrate-South, Mr Masilo Mathaka admitted them to bail after the committal of their case to the high court for trial.

Granting them bail on the same conditions under which they had initially been granted bail at the start of their case, Magistrate Mathaka ruled against the prosecution’s contention that once it had committed the matter to the high court, the lower court could not hear and determine accused persons’ admissibility to bail.

Earlier, after the state’ successful application for the committal of the case to the high court, lead prosecutor Mr Wesson Manchwe of the Directorate of Public

Prosecutions (DPP) argued against the granting of bail to the accused, submitting that the court was enjoined by law to immediately commit accused persons to jail after the committal of their case for trial.

On the argument by the defence that the prosecution was being unreasonable in seeking the immediate incarceration of the accused and was hell-bent on continuing to deprive them of their liberty, Mr Manchwe submitted that  was to be expected as it was the nature of a criminal trial to infringe upon an accused person’s liberty.

Further, he countered the defence’s view that the matter should not be committed to trial as they still had an application before the magistrates court for leave to apply to the high court for the review of the presiding magistrate’s decision to dismiss the application for the charges against the accused persons to be quashed.

Mr Manchwe said there was no prejudice to be suffered by the accused if their case was committed to the high court as they could still seek whatever relief they needed at the higher court.

Appearing for the accused, attorney Kgosietsile Ngakaagae said the defence’s argument against committal of the case to the high court was on the basis that once committed, the accused would no longer have the right to seek redress from the justice system.

He said once made, the committal could not be reversed and the accused would as a consequence suffer irreparable prejudice.

Mr Ngakaagae said the defence’s plea for the proceedings to be stayed pending the review of the magistrate’s decision should not be viewed as an attempt to apply delay tactics, but submitted rather that the accused had accepted their fate that they would be prosecuted.

He said in seeking a review, the accused persons wanted to ensure that they were subjected to a fair trial.

Another defence attorney, Mr Unoda Mack concurred with Mr Ngakaagae that not allowing the defence to approach the high court for the review of the magistrate’s decision would cause their clients severe harm, submitting that if committed to trial, the accused persons would have no other remedy available to them.

Mr Mack also called the court to note that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate on prima facie basis the sufficiency of its evidence to sustain the charges it had preferred against the accused.

Regarding bail, he argued that it was only when an accused person faced charges of murder and treason that a magistrate was barred by law to hear and determine an application for bail.

He argued that it was within the magistrates court’s jurisdiction to hear their clients’ application and decide on it.

He said committal of a case to the high court needed not affect an accused’s liberty as it was merely the transfer of a case to another court.

The accused Kenneth Kerekang, Bakang Seretse, Sadique Kebonang, Zein Kebonang, Kago Stimela and Mogomotsi Seretse, face several charges including abuse of office, giving false information to a person employed in the public service, uttering a false document, theft and money laundering. ENDS