|
|
Botswana: P100,000 Robbery Sentence Tomorrow
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)
10 April 2008
Posted to the web 11 April 2008
Gale Ngakane
Francistown
It was like putting together fragments of a complex puzzle. For two days early this week, Chief Magistrate Lorraine Makati-Lesang was in no hurry as she patiently spelt out every word of the voluminous judgement in which she eventually convicted Caiphus Atlholang after a lengthy robbery case of November 2006.
One of the factors that contributed to adjournment of the judgement was the unbearable heat that engulfed Courtroom 1. Perhaps, it precipitated the interpreter's stumbling over Setswana words, at times misinterpreting what Makati-Lesang was saying.
By the time the magistrate decided to move to Courtroom 2, which is normally used by Peggy Madandume, much time had been wasted. Hence Makati-Lesang postponed the judgement to the following day - Tuesday. In the case in which Atlholang and three others were hauled before the court for robbing employees of Security Specialist of over P100,000 in cash and cheques on 27 February 2007 along the Orapa-Francistown road, Makati-Lesang was more concerned with proper identification of Atlholang by the witnesses.
Makati-Lesang said in her judgement that she was left in no doubt that the witnesses properly identified Atlholang. The witnesses were Isaac Mahloane who was initially charged together with Atlholang, but decided to turn state witness in order to buy his freedom. The others were Dema Tshwenyego, the owner of the van that was used in the robbery, Godfrey Ntshekang, the driver of the cash-in-transit vehicle and his passenger, Khupamarama Motswagole and the arresting officer.
Facts of the case are that on 27 February 2006, Ntshekang, being an employee of Security Specialist was transporting to Francistown cash, cheques and deposit slips he gathered from various businesses in Orapa and Letlhakane. He was in the company of Mothusi Thapelo, a fellow employee of the security company, whom it is widely believed, was implicated in the case.
At Tlhalamabele cordon fence, they gave Khupamarama a lift. Along the way, they stopped for a herd of cattle crossing the road. Three men attacked the vehicle and shots were fired into the air as the assailants homed in on the security van. Motswagole was thrown out of the car. One of the assailants went for the driver while the other attacked Thapelo. The passengers were quickly bundled into the Mazda van, which was driven into the bush together with the security van. Behind the thickets, the robbers ransacked the security van, and took a cell phone from Motswagole. In all, the three men hauled P108,000 in cash and about P5,000 in cheques. They also took deposit slips. The trio divided the money among themselves and the share taken by the accused was roughly P54,000, whileMahloane went away with P30,000. The remainder was to be shared between the other conspirators who were not present at the robbery scene.
In her conviction of Atlholang, Makati-Lesang said the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt that money was stolen and that force, which included firing a pistol into the air, was used in the process. She said she had considered the credibility of Mahloane as a witness. She further said the court took into account the fact that the witness was an accomplice in the robbery. There was a possibility that he could exaggerate what others did and minimise his own involvement.
But, said Makati-Lesang: "I am satisfied that the evidence of the accomplice witness was generally consistent. He described his role without limiting his role. "From the beginning, he told the court how they planned the robbery and the role he played on the day. He said when accused No.2, Atlholang, lunged for the driver, he attacked the passenger, Thapelo. He said he took P30, 000 as his share while Atlholang took P54, 000. Also, when the others came looking for their share, he referred them to Atlholang," said Makati-Lesang.
The only discrepancy in the witness's evidence, said Makati-Lesang, was that he confused Mothusi's name with that of his cousin, but that the error was not fatal to the prosecution's case. "In the final analysis, it is my view that he was a credible witness. His evidence corroborated the evidence of other witnesses," said Makati-Lesang. While it was Atlholang's contention that he was not at the scene of crime, Makati-Lesang took time to unmask him. She said because the robbery happened in broad daylight with good visibility, it was satisfactory that Ntshekang and Motswagole actually saw him. He saw Ntshekang twice in the space of two days; at the crime scene and at the police station where Ntshekang was called to identify him.
|
Motswagole said the robbery happened in about 15 minutes. Makati-Lesang believed that this was sufficient time to identify a person. Sentence has been reserved for Friday.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2008 Mmegi/The Reporter. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections -- or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Make allAfrica.com your home page | RSS Feed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top | Site Guide | Who We Are | Advertising | Search | Subscribe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Questions or Comments? Contact us. Read our Privacy Statement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
