Kabelo Masoabi
A 34-year-old man from Ha Sethubatha in Leribe has applied for an immediate discharge from custody before the Leribe Magistrates’ Court, arguing that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie (convincing) case against him in an armed robbery matter.
The accused, Tankiso Sepitika, made the application through his legal representative, Advocate Theko, during ongoing court proceedings.
Sepitika faces charges of armed robbery arising from an incident that allegedly occurred in 2024 at Mpharane in Leribe, where a supermarket owned by foreign national, Ishtiaq Ali, was reportedly robbed at gunpoint.
According to the prosecution, two employees of the supermarket, Katleho Khoeli and Mofihli Mathibeli, were confronted shortly after closing the business for the day.
The court heard that the incident occurred after dark, when the employees had already locked the shop doors. It is alleged that a man wearing a mask suddenly approached them and forced them back inside the premises at gunpoint.
During the robbery, the suspect allegedly fired a shot at the roof of the supermarket before fleeing with M8900 in cash.
The attacker allegedly also took several small items, including the victims’ cellular phones, cigarettes and airtime vouchers.
However, in a detailed submission before the court, Adv Theko argued that the Crown’s case lacked the necessary legal elements required to sustain a charge of armed robbery.
He submitted that the perpetrator was allegedly wearing a mask that fully covered his face during the robbery, making it improbable for witnesses to positively identify the accused as the attacker.
The defence further argued that Crown witnesses were never invited to participate in a police identification parade.
Adv Theko told the court that the omission raised serious concerns about the reliability of the identification process, suggesting that police might have prematurely concluded that Sepitika was the perpetrator without following proper identification procedures.
The defence also pointed to inconsistencies regarding the firearm allegedly used during the robbery. According to court submissions, Crown witnesses described the weapon as black in colour.
However, the firearm presented in court as an exhibit appears brown with a goldish tint — a discrepancy which the defence argued undermined the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony.
Adv Theko further told the court that the prosecution failed to submit a ballistic report linking the firearm produced in court to the bullet shell recovered at the supermarket.
Without forensic evidence confirming that the shell was fired from the alleged weapon, the defence argued, the prosecution’s case remained incomplete.
On those grounds, the defence urged the court to discharge the accused, arguing that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable court could convict.
In response, the prosecution maintained that although the perpetrator initially wore a mask, Crown witnesses testified during cross-examination that at one point the suspect lowered the mask, allowing them to see his face.
They further stated that the man they later saw when police brought him to the scene for a pointing-out was the same individual involved in the robbery.
Regarding the discrepancy in the firearm’s colour, the prosecution argued that such differences do not negate the fact that a firearm was used during the robbery.
It was further submitted that the witnesses were frightened during the incident and may not have clearly observed the exact colour of the pistol.
Addressing the absence of a ballistic report, the prosecution indicated that the country faced limitations in forensic ballistic services. Despite this, the Crown argued that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the charge against the accused.
Presiding magistrate ’Mapitso Rantja adjourned the matter to 31 March 2026, when she is expected to deliver its ruling on the application for discharge.
Upon learning that officers from the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) were searching for a pistol believed to be in his possession, Sepitika decided to surrender the weapon.
According to testimony heard in court, he handed the firearm to his ruler, Chieftainess ’Maphosholi Molapo.
Under cross-examination, prosecution witness number five, Chieftainess Molapo of Sethubatha, told the court that Sepitika arrived at her home that afternoon accompanied by his wife.
She said he had come specifically to hand over the pistol.
“He told me that he had received a call from a soldier informing him that they were coming to collect the gun,” Chieftainess Molapo testified.
“He said he told them they would get it from the chief’s office after he had handed it over.”
According to the chieftainess, Sepitika appeared anxious about the situation.
“He was worried that the soldiers might hurt him if they found the gun on him,” she added.
Chieftainess Molapo told the court that she immediately contacted the Maputsoe police commander to report the matter.
The commander assured her that police officers would be dispatched to collect the firearm.
However, before the police could arrive, LDF soldiers reached her home and confiscated the pistol.
She further testified that the following morning, police officers dressed in civilian clothing arrived at her residence with the accused, only to discover that the soldiers had already taken the firearm.