Hopolang Mokhopi
THE growing number of accused persons failing to attend remand hearings at the Maseru Magistrate’s Court has emerged as a major cause of delays in the administration of justice, leaving thousands of criminal cases unresolved.
During this week’s court roll, only a small fraction of the 145 accused persons scheduled to appear attended proceedings, with more than half failing to show up without providing any explanation.
The absence of accused persons also places those who stood surety by pledging houses, vehicles, money or livestock at significant risk. Since failure to appear is treated as absconding, the court may order the forfeiture of such assets.
Maseru Senior Resident Magistrate, Motlatsi Kolisang, in a ruling delivered earlier this week, strongly criticised the growing tendency of accused persons to breach bail conditions by failing to attend remand hearings, saying the practice causes serious delays and hampers the administration of justice.
“Many bail files contain leases and vehicle papers, yet the accused do not attend remand hearings. The court has no option but to seize the assets,” he said.
Magistrate Kolisang said it was time for the courts to strengthen the enforcement of forfeiture of recognisance provided by sureties, noting that numerous files in the court registry involve accused persons who have repeatedly failed to attend remands despite having sureties attached.
“This hinders our work as magistrates because our hands are tied. We cannot set trial dates due to the absence of accused persons,” he said.
He cited Criminal Litigation Rule 67, which provides the legal basis for forfeiture when bail conditions are breached.
“Forfeiture of a recognisance given by a surety applies where the court imposes, as a condition of bail, a requirement that a surety enters into recognisance. If the accused fails to surrender to custody as required, or if it appears that the surety has failed to comply with a condition, court officers shall serve notice of a hearing at which the court will consider forfeiture of the recognisance.”
Magistrate Kolisang stressed that stricter enforcement measures are necessary to curb the growing problem of absconding and to ensure that justice is not indefinitely delayed.
“Where a person fails to attend remands without providing proper or valid reasons, we issue a warrant of arrest and revoke their bail because they have failed to comply with the conditions of bail,” he said.
He pointed out that some accused persons live in nearby areas such as Motimposo and could easily attend remand hearings, even on foot, yet still fail to appear.
“The purpose of surety is to guarantee that the defendant will attend court after being granted bail,” he said.
He added that tracing absconders is often difficult because many flee to South Africa, where local police have no jurisdiction to arrest them.
“Some people have not attended remands since 2020 after being granted bail and have never appeared in court again. When the court summons those who stood surety, they often claim they do not know the accused person’s whereabouts. In such cases, the forfeiture of assets helps compel sureties to assist in locating them,” he explained.
For years, little action has been taken against sureties when accused persons disappear. Magistrate Kolisang said this approach must change, insisting that sureties have a responsibility to ensure that accused persons attend their remand hearings.