Moorosi Tsiane

THE net appears to be closing in on the two soldiers accused of murdering 20-year-old Lisebo Tang on 10 May 2014 at Ha Leqele, Maseru, near the former army commander Tlali Kamoli’s residence.

Corporal Tjekane Sebolai and Private Selone Ratšiu, who were then on guard duty at Kamoli’s residence, allegedly opened fire on Ms Tang and her companion, Tšepo Jane, for merely parking their vehicle near the ex- army boss’s premises.

Mr Jane was fortunate to survive the hail of bullets, but Ms Tang was not as lucky—she was pronounced dead upon arrival at Makoanyane Military Hospital that same night.

Sebolai and Ratšiu are also facing an attempted murder charge for the shooting of Mr Jane, as well as a charge of malicious damage to property for wrecking the vehicle the victims were using.

Crown counsel, Advocate Motena Rafoneke, closed the prosecution’s case in November last year. Shortly afterward, defence lawyer, Adv Sello Tšabeha, informed the court of his intention to apply for the discharge of his clients.

Presenting his application before Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane yesterday (Wednesday), Adv Tšabeha argued that the Crown had deliberately suppressed evidence favourable to the accused.

He alleged that Adv Rafoneke submitted an inconclusive ballistic report while omitting another report that was conclusive.

“My Lord, our application is based on the evidence led by the Crown. Some crucial evidence was suppressed, which favoured the accused. Senior ballistic technologist (Motlale Nkhabu), who testified as the sixth witness, informed the court that his report was inconclusive.

“On 13 and 14 May 2014, he received bullet shells for analysis. Then, on 15 May 2014, an autopsy was conducted on the deceased, and a bullet fragment was discovered in her body and sent to a laboratory. However, the Crown has provided no information about this bullet fragment. According to Nkhabu, it never reached him, and no explanation was given.

“Because his report was inconclusive, the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS) sought a second opinion, and that report was conclusive. It showed that the fatal bullet was not fired from the rifles used by the accused on the night in question,” argued Adv Tšabeha.

He further contended that the Crown could not ignore such critical evidence.

“They should have established who fired the fatal shot that killed the deceased.”

Adv Tšabeha also pointed to discrepancies in Mr Jane’s testimony, arguing that his description of the shooters did not match the accused soldiers.

“Jane testified that he saw three men wearing balaclavas shooting at them. The accused were not wearing balaclavas. The three men he saw could not have been the accused.

“Additionally, the conclusive ballistic report should have been presented in court. The question remains: to which firearm do those bullet jackets belong? The mere admission that they fired shots is not enough to establish a prima facie case,” he argued.

However, Justice Sakoane questioned the relevance of the omitted ballistic report at this stage of the trial.

He said if Adv Tšabeha believed the Crown was concealing evidence, he should have raised the issue during the pre-trial conference, not after the prosecution had closed its case.

The judge also raised the possibility that the soldiers may have handed over the wrong rifles for forensic testing.

“If the bullet found in the deceased does not match the guns, could it be that the soldiers handed over different weapons?

“This issue was addressed during Nkhabu’s testimony, and he acknowledged that switching rifles was a possibility.

“If the court decides that your clients have a case to answer, you can request to subpoena the witness to clarify the matter. At this point, I do not see how the missing report prejudices your clients, as they have already admitted to firing at the vehicle in which the victims were sitting,” said Justice Sakoane.

Adv Tšabeha had also argued that the accused were acting on a red alert issued by the army chief, warning of a suspicious vehicle believed to have been involved in the Moshoeshoe II bombings.

Former First Lady, ‘Maesaiah Thabane’s Mshoeshoe II’s home had been bombed in January that year. Ironically, Kamoli is standing trial before the High Court regarding the matter.

However, Justice Sakoane challenged this justification, questioning whether the order was to “shoot to kill” or merely to apprehend suspects.

“If the vehicle was moving, why was it shot through the windscreen? Consider the number of bullet holes in the car and in the deceased.

“There was a barrage of gunfire. Was the red alert an order to shoot to kill, or simply to immobilize the vehicle?

“The car was parked when they shot at it, so the argument that they were trying to stop it from fleeing does not hold. Given the number of bullet holes in the vehicle and the deceased, does this not indicate mens rea (criminal intent) on the part of the accused?” asked Justice Sakoane.

Despite the defence’s motion for discharge, Adv Rafoneke insisted that the Crown had presented sufficient evidence for the accused to answer for their actions.

“My Lord, the Crown has led evidence proving that Tang and Jane were shot at, with Tang dying from injuries sustained during the attack.

“The shooting was carried out by the two accused before this court. There is evidence that they committed an offence, and if they have justifications for their actions, they should take the stand and provide them.

“They have already admitted to firing at the vehicle,” said Adv Rafoneke.

After hearing both arguments, Justice Sakoane adjourned the court and announced that he would deliver his ruling on the defence’s application for discharge on 31 March 2025.

The Crown had called six witnesses before closing its case in November last year. These included Detective Lance Sergeant Liau Seeko, one Captain James, vehicle owner Lehlohonolo Lesala, Mr Jane, Major Bareng Moletsane, and Mr Nkhabu.