Police accused of botching murder investigation

…as defence exposes glaring gaps in High Court trial

Kabelo Masoabi

THE Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS)’s investigation into the 2021 murder of Pule Maeka has come under intense scrutiny in the High Court in Leribe, with the defence exposing what it says are serious flaws in the handling of crucial evidence.

Seven men — Mokoto Makoa, Mahlomola Phooko, Tšebeletso Maeka, Thabo Maeka, Tumisang Maeka, Ramotlali Mpeli of Lekhoatha-Khoatha in Matlameng, Leribe, and Thabang Lekiba of Mokhotlong — are on trial for Mr Maeka’s murder. Prosecutors allege the men fatally assaulted him after suspecting him of attempting to sexually assault a woman.

All seven have pleaded not guilty.

The controversy emerged during the testimony of the investigating officer, Woman Police Constable (WPC) Lepheane, who was attached to the Criminal Investigations Department at Pitseng Police Station at the time of the incident before later being transferred to the station’s reception desk.

WPC Lepheane told the court that police were alerted by the chief of Lipohong village, who reported that a body had been discovered near a local school in Matlameng.

“We proceeded to the scene and found a large crowd gathered there. We were informed that the deceased was Pule Maeka,” she testified.

She said an examination of the body revealed multiple bruises, indicating that Mr Maeka had been severely assaulted. The body was taken to the mortuary while police launched an investigation that eventually led to the arrest of the accused.

According to WPC Lepheane, the village chief was instructed to tell the suspects to report to Pitseng Police Station, where they complied. After interviewing them, she found their explanations unsatisfactory and charged them with murder.

She further testified that the following day, the chief brought four fighting sticks and a plastic sjambok (kubu) to the police station. Police allege the items were used in the fatal assault.

However, the alleged murder weapons became the focus of heated legal argument.

Defence counsel, Advocate Mashaile, objected to their admission as exhibits, arguing they had neither been recovered directly from the accused nor handed over by them.

“The accused have maintained that they never handed over any exhibits to the police. The chain of custody and authenticity of these exhibits has therefore been compromised,” Adv Mashaile submitted.

During cross-examination, he questioned how alleged murder weapons could be delivered to police by a third party instead of being recovered directly from the accused.

WPC Lepheane testified that while the accused were in police custody, they directed the village chief to where the weapons had allegedly been hidden. The chief then retrieved the items and delivered them to the police station. However, under cross-examination, the prosecution was unable to cite any legal authority supporting that procedure.

The defence also challenged the authenticity of the exhibits after pointing out that both the police’s LMPS 12 exhibit register and the court’s exhibit records bore official stamps dated May 2026, despite the alleged murder having occurred in 2021.

Advocate Mashaile told the court that the defence had initially been provided with a police docket that did not contain an LMPS 12 exhibit register.

“We question the authenticity and origin of these exhibits,” he argued, asking where the alleged murder weapons had been kept between 2021 and 2026.

He suggested the exhibits may have been introduced years later to bolster the prosecution’s case.

Acting Justice Tšooana Lesaoana also expressed concern over the apparent discrepancy.

“Where have the exhibits been since 2021 until 2026 when they were presented to the Clerk of Court? Possession should have been either with the police or the Clerk of Court,” the judge remarked.

Prosecutor Tlali defended the investigation, arguing that the accused identified the alleged murder weapons when the village chief presented them at the police station.

He submitted that the investigating officer could not immediately register the items as exhibits because they had not yet been seized on the day of the incident. According to the prosecution, the village chief later recovered the weapons after being directed to their location by the accused, after which they were formally entered into the exhibit register.

Despite that explanation, the prosecution ultimately withdrew the disputed exhibits after questions were raised about their handling and authenticity. The withdrawal gives the prosecution an opportunity to review the evidence before deciding how to proceed.

The trial continues tomorrow.