…slams Magistrate Nthunya over ‘irrational’ acquittal
…Monokoane dismisses move as politically motivated
Moorosi Tsiane
THE Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) has petitioned the High Court seeking to overturn Chief Magistrate ’Matankiso Nthunya’s decision to dismiss corruption and fraud charges against Peka legislator, Mohopoli Monokoane.
In its application, the DCEO accuses Magistrate Nthunya of acting irrationally and irregularly in scrapping the case, describing her 1 December 2025 ruling as deeply flawed.
Mr Monokoane, alongside his company, Hippo Transport Inc (Pty) Ltd, and its store manager, Lebohang Mathibela, had been charged with the alleged theft of fertiliser initially valued at M42 000, later revised to M74 800. The trio was granted M10 000 bail in November 2024.
In a detailed review application, DCEO Director-General, Advocate Brigadier-General Mantšo Sello, argues that the magistrate’s decision to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution was not supported by the court record and ignored the prosecution’s consistent efforts to bring the case to trial.
Magistrate Nthunya dismissed the matter after noting the absence of DCEO prosecutor, Adv Lebohang Motelle, in court.
In her ruling, she stated that the DCEO had failed to provide further particulars requested by the defence on 26 August 2025 and that the accused had suffered prejudice due to delays, allegedly caused by the prosecution’s lack of preparedness, in violation of the Speedy Court Trials Act No. 9 of 2002.
However, Adv Sello disputes this, maintaining that the prosecution had always been ready to proceed and that the court’s conclusions were contradicted by an incomplete and defective record.
According to his affidavit, the prosecution’s version of events is supported by confirmatory affidavits, including one from Maseru Magistrate’s Court clerk ’Makatleho Ntoi.
He attributes delays in the case to administrative failures within the court system, particularly the disappearance of the official court record at a critical stage.
He said on 12 March 2025, the record of proceedings could not be located, resulting in a postponement to 14 April 2025 while efforts were made to trace it or reconstruct a dummy file.
The situation persisted into April, when another prosecutor appeared on behalf of the DCEO, but the matter could not proceed due to the missing record. The case was again postponed.
Adv Sello states that the record was only recovered after persistent follow-ups by the prosecution and was eventually traced to the office of Magistrate Nthunya.
Once the record resurfaced, the matter was scheduled for hearing in August 2025, with the prosecution fully prepared and witnesses present in court.
On that occasion, the defence sought a postponement after being served with an amended charge sheet and requested further particulars. The matter was subsequently set down for hearing on 11 and 12 December 2025.
Adv Sello says the dismissal of the case on 1 December 2025 came as a surprise, as the hearing had been scheduled for later that month.
He explains that Advocate Motelle only became aware of the proceedings on the day after receiving a call from defence counsel Advocate Christopher Lephuthing, indicating he was waiting in court. Upon arrival, she found that the case had already been dismissed earlier that morning.
“It was improper for the court to dismiss a criminal matter for want of prosecution, due to absence of the prosecutor on just one occasion without first establishing the reasons for non-appearance…,” Adv Sello argues.
He further attacks the integrity of the court record itself, describing it as incomplete, inconsistent and unreliable.
“The minutes for the 26th August 2025 end with an incomplete sentence… The record is silent on what transpired in court… the next hearing date/s is not stated… the record is silent.”
According to Brig Sello, these glaring omissions made it impossible for the magistrate to fairly conclude that the prosecution had caused delays.
“From the court’s record there are no facts basing the conclusion that the prosecution has delayed in prosecuting its case and further that the prosecution’s delay is generally not excusable.”
He insisted that, far from delaying the matter, the DCEO had been actively pushing for the case to be heard.
“At all material times the applicant has demonstrated and acted, to have the matter… heard to finality and avoided nor caused inordinate delays or abused the court process.”
The application also challenges the magistrate’s decision to proceed with the matter on a date that had not been allocated for hearing, arguing that this amounted to a misdirection.
“The Learned Chief Magistrate did not also consider the seriousness which the accused faced, in a case which involves the government fertilizers, and a matter of greater public interest.”
“Applicant has been prejudiced by these irregularities as its case has been dismissed for want of prosecution on the basis that it had at all material times lacked an interest to prosecute its case.”
He also criticises the court for failing to assess whether any alleged delay had actually prejudiced the defence.
“The court erred and misdirected itself… in that, it failed to inquire as to whether there is inexcusable delay that has caused any specific, tangible and irreparable harm to the defendants’ ability to defend the case.”
Adv Sello further contends that the court failed to consider the seriousness of the charges, which include fraud, corruption, theft and money laundering involving public resources.
He argues that the dismissal prejudiced the prosecution and undermined efforts to bring the matter to finality, while also failing to establish whether any delays had caused tangible harm to the defence.
In his application, Adv Sello seeks an order compelling Magistrate Nthunya to provide a typed and legible version of her handwritten judgment, parts of which are reportedly difficult to read.
He also asks the High Court to review and set aside the dismissal as irregular, reinstate the criminal proceedings against Mr Monokoane and his co-accused, and direct that the matter be heard afresh before a different magistrate.
Contacted for comment, Mr Monokoane said he viewed the case as politically motivated and aimed at derailing his political ambitions.
“I am not surprised at all. Just look at the timing — a day after I indicated that I was forming a political party. I have always maintained that these are politically motivated charges. I am ready to prove my innocence in court,” he said.
The Sunday Express’s sister publication, the Lesotho Times, reported on Thursday that Mr Monokoane is in the process of forming a new political party after recently leaving the ruling Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) for the Basotho Action Party (BAP).