24 Feb 2014

Former soldier, Major Ntungamili Gobagoba, who was facing two court charges of driving a vehicle while the alcohol in his body exceeded the permissible limit has been discharged and acquitted.

Facts before court were that on March 18, 2012, in Serowe, the accused drove a motor vehicle whilst the alcohol content in his body was 0.75mg per 1000ml and during the process was involved in an accident with another vehicle next to the department of roads, transport and safety. 

The other count was that the accused person on February 23, 2013, drove again a  motor vehicle while the alcohol content in his body  was 0.77mg per1000ml exceeding the then permissible  limit ‘0.35mg per 1000ml.’ 

Serowe Magistrate Joseline Molife discharged and acquitted the accused on both charges, on February 20, citing insufficient evidence from the state. In the judgment, Magistrate Molife outlined few oversights from the prosecution.

Regarding count one, the magistrate said the absence of results to show the road worthiness of the two vehicles in question weakened the state’s case as a question will arise as to whether the accident was possibly due to malfunction of either of the vehicle.

She also stated that the court was also of the view that in the absence of expert evidence to prove that the test machine was in good working condition, also cast doubt on the part at which state sought to rely or show that the accused driving was impaired or that he drove while the alcohol context in his breath exceeded limit.

For these reasons, she said the court was convinced that the evidence was insufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer in both counts of each of the two counts; consequently the court found the accused not guilty on each of the counts.

Earlier, the accused’s lawyer, Mr Mogaetsho Keoagile from Keoagile and Associates argued for the withdrawal and acquittal of his client saying the prosecution had failed to lead a prima facie evidence which could warrant for the accused to be called to answer.

Mr Keoagile maintained that the state failed to lead evidence that the accused person was unfit as a result of drinking and driving. 

The defense was successful in objecting to the tendering of the accident sketch plan, saying the defense was never prepared for a form of evidence in the form of a sketch plan, therefore it denied the accused his constitutional right of a fair trial.

The defense was also successful in objection to the introduction of a technician, who could have vouched for the condition of machine used to test the accused for alcohol content.

Mr Gobagoba looked relieved and could not hide his excitement after the judgment; he claimed (after court session) that these cases have cost him his military job. Ends