…over “missing” docket, witness statements
Hopolang Mokhopi
Basotho National Party (BNP) leader Machesetsa Mofomobe’s co-accused in the M5 billion Khubetsoana drug bust have launched a bid to collapse the case, accusing the police and prosecution of bringing charges before completing their investigations.
The four accused have filed an application before the Maseru Magistrates’ Court seeking the withdrawal and quashing of the charges – which include drug manufacturing and possession. They argue that there is no criminal docket nor witness statements and laboratory reports to support the prosecution’s case.
In the alternative, they want the matter referred to the Constitutional Court to determine whether accused persons can lawfully be prosecuted on the basis of incomplete investigations and allegedly missing statements and no docket.
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Advocate Lehlanako Mofilikoane, Police Commissioner Advocate Borotho Matsoso and Attorney-General Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa KC are cited as the first to third respondents in the application, filed under case number CIV/T/MSU/044/2026.
The Maseru Central Beat Patrol Unit reportedly uncovered a suspected crystal methamphetamine laboratory operating from a rented workshop in Lifariking, Khubetsoana, in February 2026. Police allegedly found the suspects in possession of approximately 7,5 tonnes of chemicals associated with the manufacture of crystal methamphetamine, ecstasy and substances linked to khat, with an estimated street value of nearly M5 billion. If proved, the case will be Lesotho’s biggest drug bust ever.
Three Chinese nationals – Chen Wei, Chen Minglevu and Yang Xiong Kang – were charged on 16 June 2026 alongside their company, Stan Dar (Pty) Ltd, and Kemong Masupha, a senior Industry Development Officer in the Ministry of Trade, Business Development and Industry. They face charges of manufacturing drugs, unlawfully importing medicines and medical devices without licences, and discharging hazardous substances and chemicals into the environment.
Mr Mofomobe is alleged to have facilitated the acquisition of the Khubetsoana premises from businessman, Simon Thebe-ea-khale, for the Chinese to operate a drug lab.
According to the charge sheet, the accused operated an illegal drug-manufacturing enterprise between August 2025 and March 2026 at Khubetsoana, Lifariking, in Berea.
The first count alleges that they unlawfully produced, manufactured, extracted, prepared, offered for sale, distributed, sold, delivered or exported drugs of abuse, chemicals or precursors, including ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, methcathinone and methamphetamine. The second count relates to the alleged unlawful importation of medicines and medical devices through the Maseru Border Post without the requisite licences. The third alleges that the accused unlawfully discharged hazardous substances, chemicals, oil or oil-containing mixtures into the environment without complying with prescribed guidelines.
The accused were each granted bail of M5 000, with surety of M50 000. The matter was allocated to Magistrate Lebusa Tšosane after Chief Magistrate Matankiso Nthunya recused herself, citing allegations that she had been bribed by one of the accused.
Police raided Mofomobe’s home in Thetsane on Wednesday but did not find him. He was ordered to report to the Maseru Central Charge Office the following day, where he was arrested and taken to court. He appeared before Magistrate Mohlomi Qhomane for remand on Thursday, when he was formally added to the case. Advocate Keketso Motiki appeared for the Crown, while former magistrate Advocate Peter Murenzi represented Mofomobe, who was released on bail conditions similar to those of his co-accused after being charged with the same offences.
The Sunday Express has established, however, that Mofomobe’s co-accused had approached the Maseru Magistrates’ Court seeking to have the entire case quashed even before he was charged.
In a founding affidavit filed on behalf of the accused, Masupha argues that the charges are based on frivolous allegations and insufficient evidence. He says the Crown conceded during remand proceedings that investigations were still under way, and that the prosecution had failed to furnish the defence with the criminal docket and witness statements despite a court order issued on 7 July.
According to Masupha, the defence first demanded the witness statements during remand proceedings but was told that investigating officers had taken the docket away to finalise investigations.
“This alone confirmed that the allegations in the charge sheet lack corroborative evidence and are frivolous or made with malicious intent, particularly as there were no final investigation reports on the laboratory in respect of the substances mentioned in the charge sheet,” he says.
Masupha says the matter was postponed on 30 June 2026 for an update on the completion of investigations, before being postponed again to 7 July, when the court ordered the Crown to furnish the defence with the requested documents within seven working days to enable the accused to obtain proper legal instruction and prepare for trial. He claims that deadline expired without compliance.
“There is no criminal docket, witness statements, laboratory report containing the test findings, or investigation diaries of the police officers who investigated the matter,” Masupha states in his affidavit.
He further alleges that the police investigation team did not obtain a search and seizure warrant before entering and searching the Khubetsoana premises, and that although officers seized substances for laboratory examination, no authentic laboratory report has been supplied to the defence.
“There is no authentic report from the laboratory, such that it can be assumed the whole charge sheet was a ruse dressed up as a criminal case,” he says.
Masupha argues that these circumstances have rendered the charge sheet defective and that the prosecution should be terminated to prevent what he describes as an oppressive and unfair trial.
“I ask that the present charges be quashed to prevent an oppressive trial. The charges were brought in bad faith before the investigations could be completed,” he says. “In the absence of a completed investigation, the charge sheet — even if accepted and uncontroverted — does not disclose the commission of an offence. The fact that we were remanded while investigations were continuing is enough evidence that the criminal proceedings were instituted with an ulterior motive, or to wreak vengeance on the accused. This is an abuse of court process.”
Masupha also takes issue with the manner in which the accused were arrested and charged. “The cloak-and-dagger approach of the police in arresting us, charging us and failing to provide us with witness statements is unconstitutional,” he says. “We accordingly ask that our right to be presumed innocent be protected and that the charges be quashed.”
He argues that the alleged failure to provide the docket and witness statements has prejudiced the accused’s ability to gather rebuttal evidence and prepare their defence, and invokes the right to a trial without unreasonable delay.
“Their default is proof that they put us through the unnecessary hardship of being embarrassed with criminal charges before the investigations could be completed,” he says. “As the situation stands, the case cannot be set down for hearing, as the investigations are continuing. The delay in completing the investigations adversely affects our right to have the trial begin and be concluded without unreasonable delay.”
Masupha accuses the Crown of adopting a “lax attitude” towards the court’s case-management directives, saying the failure to comply with the disclosure order cannot simply be overlooked. He further argues that police should not charge suspects before completing investigations merely to generate publicity.
“It is time that the mindset of police officers who charge people before investigations are completed, simply to impress on social media, is addressed,” he states.
He argues that, in the absence of the criminal docket and other exhibits, there is a substantial risk that a fair trial will not be possible. “Given the complex and technical nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the offence, we needed the criminal docket to demonstrate that this is a futile prosecution,” he says. The accused are also asking for the investigation diaries to be disclosed “to ascertain the facts and circumstances that prevailed at the time of the alleged contraventions of the law.”
Masupha asks the magistrates’ court to quash the charges, dismiss the case for want of prosecution, or permanently stay the proceedings. Alternatively, he wants the court to refer what he describes as substantial constitutional questions to the High Court in terms of Section 128 of the Constitution before the criminal case proceeds.
The Crown is yet to respond to the application. The matter has been postponed to 22 September 2026.