Manyokole wants charges dropped

MASERU – THE suspended director-general of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO), Advocate Mahlomola Manyokole, wants the High Court to dismiss his fraud charges.

Advocate Manyokole, the DCEO’s head of the Asset Recovery Unit Peter Matekane, accountant Matsobane Putsoa and one Ikhetheleng Matabane are facing corruption and fraud charges for allegedly swindling the government of M3.8 million.

They are charged together with Matabane’s Mokorotlo Communications and Putsoa M Putsoa & Associates.

In an application filed in the High Court last week, the group said the charges should be dismissed because the state has failed to prosecute them.

They are seeking an order declaring that the failure of the prosecution to provide them with copies of dockets or statements of witnesses “as ordered by the court” is an infringement of their right to a fair trial.

In an affidavit, Advocate Manyokole said they are facing “trumped up charges (which) are completely devoid of any merit whatsoever”.

He complained that the case has been subjected to a litany of postponements.

They first appeared before the Maseru magistrate on May 21 2021 to be formally charged.

The case was postponed to May 31 only to be remanded to June 28 of the same year pending investigations.

On June 28 they were before court where additional charges were read to them and the matter was postponed to July 26 of the same year.

On July 26 they appeared in court and the crown informed the magistrate that they were to be indicted in the High Court but in the meantime, the matter had to be remanded pending investigations.

On August 23 they were before the magistrate again and the DCEO told the court that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had decided that they should be tried in the High Court for a summary trial.

On February 21 this year they were served with a notice of trial to appear before the High Court on February 24.

“Nothing of significance took place on that day except to report to the Registrar who gave us the date of May 10 2022 on which to attend court for a Pre-Trial Planning Session,” Advocate Manyokole said.

“I must indicate that I had written a letter to the DCEO on the August 6 2021 requesting for a copy of the docket,” he said.

“My aforesaid letter was never favoured with any response.”

He said before writing to the DCEO he made several verbal requests for a copy of the docket in vain until he wrote a formal request.

He said on February 21, before attending the Notice of Trial on February 24, he wrote a letter requesting a copy of the docket so that he could attend court with the docket in his possession.

He said when he wrote the letter he reminded the DCEO of his similar written request of August 8 last year.

“Again there was no response to my request for the docket,” he said.

He said later on May 10 this year they appeared in the High Court for a Pre-Trial Planning Session and informed the court that despite several demands to be provided with the docket the crown had failed to do so.

The court, he said, ordered the crown to provide them with the docket.

“There has been no compliance with the orders of the court aforesaid and the State is accordingly in contempt,” he said.

The set down for the Pre-Trial Planning Session for this week’s Monday, he said, “was accordingly contrary to the order of court that the (Pre-Trial Planning Session) can only be done upon proof of receipt and/or service of the statements”.

Because of this, they have asked the High Court to stay the holding of the Pre-Trial Planning Session pending the outcome of their application to permanently stay their charges.

Advocate Manyokole said the history of this matter reveals the pattern or plot by the crown which is consistent with a deliberate aim to deny them their fundamental right to a fair trial.

“There is no doubt by refusing to provide us with the witness statements that the Crown is intending that we have a trial by ambush without us having had sufficient time to prepare for our defence,” he said.

“The trial can in the circumstances not be fair, just and balanced if the prosecution is allowed to keep relevant material such as witness statements close to its chest and thereby hope to spring a surprise on us for purposes of securing a conviction.”

Advocate Manyokole said on October 25 they appeared before court after being served with notice four days earlier, while some were notified a day earlier.

“I refused notice on me of the Notice of trial without the annexures referred to in the Notice but I later accepted service, still without those annexures,” he said.

“It can easily be discerned from the conduct of the Crown that the charges against us are trumped up.”

Staff Reporter