africa.law — Free African Legal Information

Judgment

# R V Tlelase & 3 Others (CRI/T/0007/2024) [2025] LSHC 254 (3 December 2025) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: R V Tlelase & 3 Others \(CRI/T/0007/2024\) …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03) [ Download PDF ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (892.4 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/254/eng@2025-12-03/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### R V Tlelase & 3 Others (CRI/T/0007/2024) [2025] LSHC 254 (3 December 2025) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 2 / - __This judgment has been anonymised to protect personal information in compliance with the law. Citation R V Tlelase & 3 Others (CRI/T/0007/2024) [2025] LSHC 254 (3 December 2025) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2025] LSHC 254 Copy Hearing date 10 November 2025 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Case number CRI/T/0007/2024 Judges [Mokoko J](/judgments/all/?judges=Mokoko%20J) Judgment date 3 December 2025 Language English ##### __Collections * [Case indexes](/taxonomy/case-indexes) * [Refugees](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees) * [Criminal law](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees-criminal-law) * [Murder](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees-criminal-law-murder) Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE HIGH COUT OF LESOTHO** **CRI/T/0007/2024** **Held in Maseru** In the matter Between **REX CROWN** And **MOTHUSI TLELASE ACCUSED 1** **SOOTHO LEPHOTO ACCUSED 2** **MOABI SESIOANA ACCUSED 3** **KAMO PHAKOE ACCUSED 4** _Neutral Citation_ : Rex vs Mothusi Tlelase and 3 Others [[2025] LSHC 341](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/341) CRIM (3rd December 2025) **CORAM** : T. J. MOKOKO J **HEARD** : 10/11/2025 **DELIVERED** : 03/12/2025 **__SUMMARY__** **Murder** \- Accused persons acted in common purpose in the commission of the charged offences- Evidence of Accomplice- application of **_section 236 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act_** **_1981_** \- Court to exercise caution when dealing with accomplice evidence- At the end of the trial, the accomplice was discharged from liability concerning the offence. **__ANNOTATIONS__** __CITED CASES__ _LESOTHO_ _Bereng Griffith Lerotholi and Others v The King 1926-53 HCTLR 149 (PC)_ _Keketsi and Others v Rex_ _LAC 2015-2016 412_ _Manamolela and Others v Rex LAC (1980-84) 202_ _Matsobane Putsoa v Rex_ _1974-1975 LLR 201_ _Mohlalisi and Others_ _LAC (1980 – 1984) 110_ _Mokoenya and Others v Rex LAC 2007-2008_ _Phasumane and Others v Rex LAC (1985-89) 168_ _Lefaso v Rex_ _LAC 1990- 1994 44_ _Lefaso v Rex C of A (CRI) 7/1989 [1990] LSCA_ _Letuka v Rex_ _LAC 1995- 1999 405_ _Rex v Qamo Matela_ _CRI/T/0018/2021[[2024] LSHC 227](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/227) _ _R v Lehlohonolo Scott CRI/T/123/12[[2020] LSHC 6](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2020/6)_ _Ramaema v Rex LAC (2000-2004) 710_ _Rex v Ketsepile Moeletsi and others CRI/T/0043/2023_ _Rex v Teboho Tamati_ _Ramakatsane 1978 (1) LLR 70_ _Rex v Tseliso Nthathe C of A (CRI) NO. 5 /2022[2024] LSCA_ _Tseliso Nthane CRI/T/0009/2020_ _SOUTH AFRICA_ _DPP Gauteng v Pistorius_ _[2016] 1 ALLSA 346 (SCA)_ _Magmoed v Janse Van Rensburg and Others_ _1993 (1) SA 777 (A) SACR 67 (G)_ _S v De Oliveira_ _1993 (2) SACR 59 (A)_ _S v Hlapezula and Others 1965 (4) SA 439 (A)_ _S v Humphreys_ _2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA); 2015 (1) SA 419-420 (SCA)_ _S v Khoza 1982 (3) SA 1019 (A)_ _S v Madlala_ _1993 (2) SA 765 (A)_ _S v Malinga and Others, 1963 (1) SA 692 (A.D)_ _S v Mgedezi_ _1989 (1) SA 687_ _Rex v Ncanana 1948 (4) SA (A)_ _S v Sefatsa and Others 1988 (1) SA 868 (A)_ _S v Seqwahla_ _1967 (4) SA 566 (A)_ _S v Shaik and Others 1983 (4) 57 (A)_ _S v Singo_ _1993 (2) SA 765 (A)_ _S v Mafela_ _1980 (3) SA 825 (A)_ _S v Ngobeni_ _1992 (1) SACR 628 (C)_ _S v Petrus_ _1969 (4) SA 85 (A)_ _S v Prins_ _1990 (1) SACR 426 (A)_ _The State v Obakeng Gracious Skhosana_ _Case Number: 20/2017_ __STATUTES__ _Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_ _Internal Security (Arms and Ammunition) Act NO. 17. Of 1966_ _Penal Code Act 2010_ __BOOKS__ _Burchell and Milton, Principles of Criminal Law, 2 nd Ed. 393_ _ARTICLES_ _Crime and Punishment in South Africa 1975_ **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** [1]**Count 1** 1. **Mothusi Tlelase,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 2. **Sootho Liphoto** , a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 3. **Moabi Sesioana,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 4. **Kamo Phakoe,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisepholoa, in the Maseru district. Hereinafter called the accused are charged with contravening the provisions of _section 40 (1) of the Penal Code Act 2010_ , read with _section 26 (1)_ thereof. In that upon or about the 14th May 2023 and at or near Tsenolo FM, Lower Thamae in the district of Maseru, the said accused sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful act together did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of Ralikonelo Joki. The said accused did commit the offence of murder of the said Ralikonelo Joki, such death resulting from their act or omission. **Count 2** 1. **Mothusi Tlelase,**a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 2. **Sootho Liphoto,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 3. **Moabi Sesioana,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 4. **Kamo Phakoe,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. Hereinafter called the accused are charged with contravening the provisions of _section 40(1) of the Penal Code Act 2010, read with section 26(1)_ thereof. In that upon or about the 20th May 2023, and at or near Mokema in the district of Maseru, the said accused, sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful act together, did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of Mothibe Mothibe, such death resulting from their act or omission. **Count 3** 1. **Mothusi Tlelase,**a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 2. **Sootho Liphoto,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 3. **Moabi Sesioana,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 4. **Kamo Phakoe,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. Hereinafter called the accused, are charged with contravening the provisions of _section 40 (1) of the Penal Code Act 2010_ , read with _section 26 (1)_ thereof. In that upon or about the 20th May 2023, and at or near Mokema in the district of Maseru, the said accused sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful act together did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of Thomello Ntsane, such death resulting from their act or omission. **Count 4** 1. **Mothusi Tlelase,**a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 2. **Sootho Liphoto,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 3. **Moabi Sesioana,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 4. **Kamo Phakoe,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. Hereinafter called the accused, are charged with contravening the provisions of _section 64 of the Penal Code Act, 2010,_ read with _section 26 (1)_ thereof. In that upon or about the 20th May 2023, and at or near Mokema in the district of Maseru, the said accused, sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful act together, did unlawfully use or threaten to use violence on Mothibe Mothibe in order to steal or obtain property; to wit, a 7.65 mm firearm with serial number FHR 54782. The said accused did commit the offence of robbery. **Count 5** 1. **Mothusi Tlelase,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 2. **Sootho Liphoto,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 3. **Moabi Sesioana,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. 4. **Kamo Phakoe,** a Mosotho male adult of Mokema Kotisephola, in the Maseru district. Hereinafter called the accused are charged with contravening the provisions of _section 3(2), read with section 43, of the Internal Security (Arms and Ammunition)[Act No. 17 of 1966](/akn/ls/act/1966/17), _as amended. In that upon or about the 14th May 2023, and at or near Tsenolo FM Lower Thamae and Mokema both in the district of Maseru, the said accused sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful act together, did unlawfully and intentionally have in their possession firearms without the requisite certificate to wit; 1. 9mm firearm serial number rubbed off. 2. 7.65 firearm serial number rubbed off. [2] The accused persons pleaded not guilty to all the counts. The crown did not accept the accused's pleas and led evidence from its witnesses. **CROWN’S CASE** **PW1- Teboho Kumi** [3] He testified that he resides at Ha Abia, Pena-Pena. He is self-employed as a motor mechanic and runs a taxi business. On 14 May 2023, A2 called him for transport to Ha Thamae. A2 arrived with his companions, who informed him they were going to pick something up at Ha Thamae. He charged them M160 for two trips. [4] During the journey to Ha Thamae, they asked him to tune the car radio to T’senolo FM. He explained that the radio could only receive two stations: MOAFRIKA FM and LESELI FM. A1 mentioned that he would connect to T’senolo FM using his headset. He stated that the occupants of the vehicle were A1, A2, A4, and Atang Majara, who was already with him when the three customers arrived. He drove until he reached Lower Thamae. As they were approaching T’senolo FM, they informed him that they intended to shoot Ralikonelo Joki. He asked them why they had not told him about their plan. A2 replied that they knew he would not have agreed to take them there if they had. He noticed that Atang Majara was asleep, as he had been drinking alcoholic beverages. [5] He stopped the vehicle near the Tsenolo FM offices. A1 and A2 quickly got out, carrying pistols, while A4 remained in the car. Rushing onto the Ts’enolo FM premises, they instructed the witness to go to the main road and wait for them. As he approached the gate, he heard gunshots. Once he passed the gate, he spotted a 4x4 van driving out and stopped abruptly to avoid a collision. The van then crashed into the wall on the opposite side. A1 and A2 signalled for him to stop by slapping the side of the car; they opened the doors and got into the vehicle. [6] He asked them what they had against Joki (deceased). A2 replied, “Ua phapha.” After that, he drove away, and at that time, Atang Majara was awake. A2 then phoned someone and reported that they had shot him and that he was dead. He heard the other person suggest meeting at Ha Matala. He drove to Ha Matala and, upon arrival, A4 got out of the vehicle. He continued to drive to Masianokeng. [7] When he arrived at Masianokeng, A1 and A2 got out of the vehicle and approached a Honda Fit taxi that was parked there. He did not see the occupants of that vehicle. They paid him M160.00, which he then used to fuel the vehicle. He stated that he knew A1, A2, and A4 well, but he did not know A3 personally. However, he recognized A3 as the person who had been posted on the LMPS Facebook page as "**WANTED.** " [8] He knew A2 very well, as they had both worked as taxi drivers and were employed together by the same employer at one point, who was nicknamed Mochini. He mentioned that, at the time of the incident, he had known A1 for over a year. Additionally, he had known A4 for two years, as A4 sang for initiates at Ha Abia. [9] On 20 May 2023, which fell on a Saturday, A2 called him asking for a ride to Mazenod. A2 came to his home, and he drove him to Mazenod, where a feast was taking place. They spent the entire day at Mazenod, enjoying various intoxicating beverages. In the evening, A2 requested to be taken to Mokema to collect his firearm. Upon arriving in Mokema, they went to a tavern, where they encountered A1 and an unidentified individual. [10] They informed him that they had missed the person they came to see, so the witness drove through the village and noticed car lights in the distance. A1 and A2 got out of the vehicle and mentioned that they would meet them at the location of the other car. Later, the unidentified person who remained in the car received a call and instructed the witness on where to go. They then met A1 and A2 at that location, where A1 and A2 were holding a gun and a cell phone. A1 and A2 claimed that the gun belonged to the person they had shot, along with his concubine. [11] A1 stated that when he shot the victim, the vehicle almost collided with him. The witness informed both A1 and A2 that the phone would connect them to the shooting. They discarded the phone from the car. When they reached the intersection, A1 and an unidentified individual got out of the vehicle, and then he drove away. [12] He asked A2 why he shot the second victim. A2 explained that the victim had made life difficult for his boy, although the witness did not know who that boy was. The witness then went to his home with A2 and a man named Moeketsi. They walked to a shop to buy cigarettes, and after that, they parted ways. That was the last time he saw A2. [13] During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether he knew A1, A2, and A4 but not A3. He confirmed that he knew A1, A2, and A4, while stating that he was unfamiliar with A3. The witness was asked whether he had ever discussed the murders of the deceased with A3. He responded that such a discussion had never been held. The witness confirmed that even after the events of 14th May and 20th May, he had still not spoken with A3 about the matter. On 14 May 2023, when the witness met A1, A2, and A4, it was suggested that they did not discuss anyone's murder, and the witness confirmed this was true. [14] The witness was asked if he ferried A1, A2, A4, and Atang Majara to Lower Thamae at A2's request. The witness confirmed that this was the case. Upon arrival at Lower Thamae, A4 stayed in the car. It was then suggested that A4 did not get out of the car, to which the witness agreed. It was suggested that A4 did not participate in the shooting of Ralikonelo Joki, and the witness responded that A4 did not leave the car. Additionally, the witness was informed that A3 was not present on 20 May 2023, and the witness confirmed that A3 was indeed absent. [15] During cross-examination, the witness was questioned about the timing of a phone call he received from A2. The witness stated that A2 called him during the day while he was repairing a vehicle, with the assistance of Atang Majoro. Later that evening, A2 contacted the witness again regarding the trip. The witness confirmed that he had been consuming alcoholic beverages that day and noted that when A2 and his companions arrived, they found him still drinking. The witness was asked whether he refrains from drinking alcohol while on duty, since it can impair one’s judgment. He responded that he does avoid alcohol when working out of respect for his customers and to avoid any smell of alcohol. [16] It was suggested to the witness that A1 and A2 exited the vehicle at Lower Thamae to urinate, as they had been drinking alcohol. The witness confirmed that A1 and A2 did get out of the car and stated that they intended to shoot at Joki Ralikonelo. It was suggested to the witness that A1 and A2 went to a secluded area to urinate. He responded that he saw both A1 and A2 entering Ts’enolo FM's yard. It was suggested that if A1 and A2 had indeed entered the yard, a security guard could have stopped them. However, the witness stated that he did not see any security guard and reaffirmed that he observed them entering the Tsenolo FM yard. The suggestion was made that the witness did not see what happened because he was intoxicated. In response, the witness stated that what he observed was exactly what they had planned to do when they got out of the car, as Joki was shot. The witness was asked if he ever saw Joki being shot at, to which he responded that he heard gunshots coming from the yard. He mentioned that a car lost control and nearly collided with his car, prompting him to stop abruptly. The witness admitted that he did not witness the shooting, and further admitted that he did not know that the vehicle was that of Joki. It was suggested to the witness that while A1 and A2 were relieving themselves, they heard gun reports. The witness replied that he understood. [17] During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether he had fled the scene at high speed, and he confirmed that he had. It was then suggested that he acted as the getaway driver. He responded by saying that his conscience would not allow him to drive slowly. The witness was subsequently questioned about why he felt the need to escape. He explained that when A1 and A2 got into the car, he asked them why they had shot the deceased. They replied, "**_oa phapha_** ," [18] The witness was asked if A1 and A2 had stated their intention to shoot Joki when they exited the car. It was suggested that the witness could leave the area. In response, the witness explained that he would have been able to leave if A1 and A2 had not left A4 in the car. However, he felt unable to leave the scene because he was unsure whether A4 had a gun. The witness was asked if A4 was simply a drunk passenger, like Atang Majara. The witness responded that A4 did not participate in any way. It was further suggested to the witness that A4 did not threaten him. The witness replied that it would not have been easy for him to leave the scene, as he had picked up A1, A2, and A4 together, which made him uncertain about what A4 might do. The witness was asked if his involvement in driving the getaway car made him complicit in the murder of Joki. He responded that he was not complicit because he was not involved in the planning of Joki's death. [19] It was suggested to the witness that A1 and A2 urinated, then got into the car to drive away because the person they had come to meet was at Ha Matala. The witness denied this claim, stating that he had heard A2 on the phone telling someone that they had killed him and were heading to Ha Matala. It was suggested to the witness that he never said A2 told him to take him to Ha Matala, as he had heard the other person on the line saying he was already at Ha Matala. The witness replied that when they arrived at Ha Thamae, A2 said he was going to kill Joki, and he figured out that there was no parcel to be picked up there, which is why he asked A2 why he had not told him about his plan from the outset. A2 stated he lied because he knew the witness wouldn't transport him to Ha Thamae. [20] It was put to the witness that, upon arrival at Ha Matala, A2 drove the car to Masianokeng, to which the witness agreed. It was suggested to the witness that A2 drove the car because the witness was too drunk to drive. The witness refuted these claims and stated that he asked the person who was with him to drive, as his feet were trembling with fear, after witnessing the shooting of Joki. However, A2 jumped into the driving seat and drove the car to Masianokeng. It was put to the witness that he did not report this incident to the Police. The witness replied that he did not report it because he knew that his life was in danger and added that, recently he reported a case to the Police against the accused, as there was a plot to kill him. [21] It was suggested to the witness that he said that before A1 and A2 got out of the car, they cocked the guns, and the witness confirmed this. It was put to the witness that in his statement, he did not say that A1 and A2 cocked the guns before they got out of the car. The witness replied that they came back into the car, carrying the same guns they had earlier cocked. It was suggested to the witness that in his statement, he said he observed that the accused had guns when they got into the car, and the witness refuted this claim. It was suggested to the witness that he said that after Joki had been shot, he observed that A2 had a 7.65 pistol, while A1 had a 9mm pistol, meaning that he learned for the first time after the shooting that they had guns. The witness denied this and stated that he was explaining the calibre of the guns they were carrying, but not that he saw the guns for the first time after the shooting. [22] It was suggested to the witness that his version that A1 and A2 got out of the car carrying guns was a fabrication, intended to falsely implicate the accused. The witness replied that the accused said they were going to kill Joki. He added that he heard gun reports, and when they came back, they did not deny that they killed him when he asked them about that. It was suggested to the witness that the accused did not cock guns, and the witness maintained that they did. The question was posed to the witness how he managed to identify the calibre of the guns, since it was dark. The witness stated that he managed to identify the calibre of the guns with the assistance of cluster or dashboard lights, which provided sufficient light in the car. When asked how he differentiated the guns, he replied that they looked different. He replied that since his father was a Police officer, he came to gain some knowledge about guns. [23] It was suggested to the witness that A1 and A2 were carrying 7.62 mm firearms. The witness replied that he could not deny that and added that it seemed he was mistaken. It was suggested to the witness that 7.65 and 9mm empty shells were found at the crime scene. The witness replied that it meant he had clearly seen the calibres they were carrying. It was put to the witness that 7.62 calibre shells were not found at the crime scene. The witness maintained that A1 and A2 were carrying 7.65 and 9mm calibre guns, respectively. [24] It was suggested to the witness that when A2 drove from Matala to Masianokeng, one Poloko had joined them, and the witness denied this. It was put to the witness that on the 20th May 2023, he did not witness any shooting, and the witness confirmed this. It was suggested to the witness that A2 asked the witness to transport him to Mokema to collect his firearm, and that indeed A2 collected the gun. The witness confirmed this. The witness was then asked whether he identified the gun's calibre. The witness replied that it was a 7.65 calibre. [25] During cross-examination, it was put to the witness that he could not confirm that A1 and A2 committed two murders at Mokema, as they occurred in his absence. The witness replied that when A1 and A2 returned, they told him that they killed a person together with his concubine. [26] The court asked the witness what time they arrived at Lower Thamae. The witness stated that they arrived at Lower Thamae at approximately 09:00 pm. The witness was further asked by the court where the car that collided with the wall came from. The witness stated that the car emerged from the yard at high speed and then collided with the wall. He looked up and saw that the driver’s head was leaning on the steering wheel. He observed that the vehicle was a white Toyota single cab. **PW2- Sekhobe Maama (Accomplice witness)** [27] He testified that he resides at Mokema and is a farmer. He identified all the accused persons as his co-villagers. He knew both Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane during their lifetime. He stated that he witnessed the murder of Thomello Ntsane and Mothibe Mothibe. [28] He testified that on the 18th May 2023, when he came back from work at Koro-koro Health Centre, he came to A3’s shop and met with Tsepang Mosoeunyane and A1, who were drinking intoxicating beverages. He went home, then came back and joined Tsepang and A1. A1 asked him when he last saw Mothibe Mothibe, and he replied that it had been a while. A1 asked the witness to look for Mothibe for him, and further inquired from the witness if he had Mothibe’s contacts. The witness commented that A1 was desperate to meet Mothibe and inquired from A1 why he wanted to meet Mothibe. A1 replied that he wanted to meet him urgently, as Mothibe had to be murdered. The witness then told A1 that he had Mothibe’s contacts, and A1 said they would call him later, and continued drinking alcohol. [29] In the evening, A1 asked the witness to call Mothibe and inquire about his whereabouts. The witness called Mothibe, who said he was at his home, but the witness asked why he was looking for him. The witness replied that he was bored and suggested they go somewhere outside the village to have some drinks. Mothibe said he was busy with something, but he would call the witness as soon as he was done, as he was bored too. At night, Mothibe called to cancel their appointment. The witness inquired from A1 the reason why Mothibe had to be murdered, and the reason that A1 advanced was that Mothibe was problematic. They went their separate ways. [30] On the 20th May 2023, he went to his sister’s house at Khubetsoana. He left Maseru for Mokema around 07:00 pm and called one Rapelang Chaka, who operated a cab, to pick him up at Mahlabatheng. On the way from Maseru, he received a call from A1, who was with A2, and asked about his whereabouts. He told them he was stuck in traffic, and eventually he arrived in Mahlabatheng, where Rapelang picked him up. [31] Upon arriving at Mokema, A1 and A2 called him to inquire about his whereabouts, and he informed them that he was at Mabenkeleng village. They told him that he would find them by the graveyard next to Mr. Sekila’s house. Later, he met A1 and A2 at the agreed location. They told him they had located the person he had been asked to look for. He asked them where he was, and they replied that he was somewhere in the village. The witness and A1 entered the village, while A2 and Rapelang went to Corner Pocket bar to keep an eye on Mothibe, who was also at Corner Pocket bar. On the way to Corner Pocket bar, the witness and A1 saw Mothibe’s car leaving the bar. When they arrived at Corner Pocket Bar, they realised that Mothibe was en route to Ha Rampoetsi. They left the corner Pocket and followed Mothibe using a footpath. There were A1, A2, Rapelang, and the witness. They saw Mothibe’s car turning below one of Kefumane’s house. They hid in the trees and aloes. Mothibe’s car approached them, and as soon as the car passed their hiding place, A1 and A2 fired shots at the car, each using the gun in their possession. As they fired shots at the car, they were running on the sides of the car. The witness and Rapelang remained at their hideout. The car lost control and drifted off the road next to one Constable’s house. Even after the car had veered off the road, they continued firing shots at the car. The witness and Rapelang approached the scene because at that time, A1 and A2 had stopped shooting. [32] A2 opened the car's boot and entered the car through it, with A1 behind him. They searched the car and took some alcohol, a phone, a wallet, and a gun. They handed these items to the witness and Rapelang as they were outside the car. A1 and A2 got out of the car, and they retrieved those items from the witness and Rapelang. Upon arriving at the location of the aloes, they discarded the bank cards, but the witness was uncertain whether the Identity Document was among them. They proceeded to the car, which A2 had been travelling in. The car was parked on the tarred road. When they reached the car, A2 boarded it, and one Tsepang Monatli got out. A1 handed two guns to A2, who then took them away. Then A1, the witness, and Rapelang went to the place where Rapelang had parked the car. They went to the Scaffle cafe bar, where A1 bought two quarts of beer. [33] About a week later, he met A3 at his shop. A3 inquired of the witness whether he knew who killed Mothibe, and the witness replied that A1 and A2 were responsible. He testified that when A1 and A2 fired at Mothibe’s car, there were two occupants in the car, namely Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane, who was also shot at, and said that she was shot by mistake, as the intention was to kill Mothibe. He said A1 said they did not intend to kill Thomello. [34] In a separate incident, the witness, together with Tsepang Monatli, met A3 and Ntsane on the mountain top. A3 asked the witness whether A1 and A2 had given them anything. Tsepang and the witness replied that they had given them nothing. A3 said he had given them M5,000.00, and at that moment, one Qoaling arrived. [35] While the witness was at Ha Rantsetse, he received a call from Relebohile Pheko, inquiring where A3 was, as the Police were looking for him. Later that evening, A3 said he was leaving for Gauteng. [36] The witness was asked if he had any discussion with A3 while they were on the mountain top, and the witness replied that A3 said he had ordered a hit on Mothibe and that they should take his gun. The witness testified that after the shooting, A1 gave A2 two guns: one that belonged to A1, which he used in the shooting, and the other was taken from Mothibe. A2 was then in possession of three guns, including the one A2 used in the shooting. After robbing Mothibe of his gun, A1 shot at Mothibe using Mothibe’s gun. [37] On a date he could not remember, A1, A2, and A4 came to his home in a Honda Fit and met him at the gate. A1, A2, and A4 alighted from the vehicle and inquired if he could, by any chance, have the contacts of anyone from St. Michael (Mikaeleng), and if his father could have such contacts. The witness replied that he did not have contacts of anyone from St. Michael, and he doubted that his father had such contacts. He asked them what they needed the contacts for. He said they told him they were going to kill Joki, and he asked them why they wanted to kill him. They told him it was a feud over initiation school, but he wouldn't understand, as it was a deeply guarded secret. He testified that one day A1 arrived at Mokema and told him that they had killed Ralikonelo Joki. He testified that he witnessed the shooting of Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane, and that A1 confirmed to him that they had killed Ralikonelo Joki. [38] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that it was not correct that A3 told the witness that he instructed A1 and A2 to kill Mothibe and steal his gun, and the witness reaffirmed his version. The witness confirmed that in his statement, he did not mention that A3 paid M5,000 to A1 and A2 to kill Mothibe. The witness further confirmed that in his confession, he did not say A3 said he gave M5,000.00 to A1 and A2 to kill Mothibe and rob him of his gun. The defence suggested to the witness that A3 was not present when Mothibe and Thomello were killed, to which the witness agreed. The witness further agreed that A4 was not present when Mothibe and Thomello were shot. [39] It was suggested to the witness that there has never been a time when the witness, together with the accused, ever discussed the killing of Joki, Mothibe, and Thomello. The witness agreed with this assertion and added that A1, A2, and A4 came to his home to inquire about the contacts of Joki, and that they did not talk about the killing of Mothibe and Thomello. [40] It was suggested to the witness that A1, A2, and A4 told the witness that they wanted Joki’s contacts for initiation school issues. The witness refuted this claim and stated that the accused told him that they wanted to kill Joki over issues concerning initiation matters. It was put to the witness that he heard from someone that A1, A2, and A4 participated in the killing of Joki. The witness replied that A1 told him that they killed Joki. [41] It was suggested to the witness that on the 20th May 2023, the witness was so drunk that his judgment was affected, and the witness denied that he was intoxicated. The defence put it to the witness that A1 did not go anywhere with the witness on the 20th May 2023, and the witness denied this version. It was further suggested to the witness that A1 and A2 left together to meet someone in the village, but the witness denied this. The defence further suggested to the witness that later, A1 and A2 emerged from the village, and that A1 left in a taxi. The witness denied this version and added that A1 left after the shooting incident. The defence then suggested that A1 and A2 never participated in the shooting of Mothibe and Thomello, and the witness disagreed with this suggestion. **PW3- Mpho Matamane** [42] He testified that he resides at Mokema. He knows the accused persons before the court, as his co-villagers. He further testified that he had known the deceased persons during their lifetime. He said that on one occasion, A3 called him to pick up a person named Bots’onyane from Steilfontein in Northwest. He went to A3's house in Klerksdorp, and they left together to collect guns from A3’s house. Bots’onyane went into the house and came out carrying a black bag, and they headed to Steilfontein. He dropped Botsonyane at his residence, and he left for the taxi rank. The following day, A3 called him, reporting that he was on his way, accompanied by the Lesotho Police. A3 sent him a WhatsApp message instructing him to go to Botsonyane and take the guns to Klerksdorp near the cemetery. He went to Botsonyane’s house, and they drove to Klerksdorp, where they found A3 together with the Police at the cemetery. Botsonyane handed the black bag to A3. He drove back to Steilfontein and dropped Botsonyane at his residence. [43] He testified that on a date he could not recall, he was at A3’s shop drinking some alcoholic beverages, and he ran out of cash. He approached A3 and asked him to buy him some beer. A3 was in the company of A1 and A2. A2 inquired from him if he had not seen Mothibe, while he was at Mahlabatheng. A2 asked him to inform him if he could see Mothibe, because he wanted to shoot him. He did not inquire why he wanted to shoot Mothibe, because Mothibe had torn his family apart. A3 bought some beer for him, and he left them. [44] He called A2 to tell him that Mothibe was passing at Mahlabatheng heading towards Mokema. A2 informed him that he had no ammunition; therefore, he would not be able to shoot him. [45] Under cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that when he arrived at A3’s house in Klerksdorp, A3 was not present, and the witness confirmed that. It was suggested to the witness that he did not know where Botsonyane had retrieved the bag, and the witness agreed. The witness further agreed that he did not open the bag to investigate its contents. It was suggested to the witness that the Police kidnapped A3 as they made him cross the border into South Africa, without having his passport stamped. The witness replied that he did not know. It was suggested to the witness that the Police had assaulted A3, to which the witness replied that he did not know. The witness confirmed that none of the Police officers were wearing a police uniform. [46] During cross-examination, the witness stated that at the cemetery, A3 approached their car and Botsonyane handed the black bag to him, and A3 returned to the Police car. The defence suggested to the witness that on the day he called A2 reporting that he had seen Mothibe en route to Mokema, Mothibe was not shot at on that day, because A2 said he had no ammunition, and the witness confirmed this claim. It was suggested to the witness that A2 did not give him a motive for shooting Mothibe, and the witness replied that he did not inquire from A2 about the motive for shooting Mothibe. **ADMISSIONS** [47] The defence accepted the following statements, police reports, and post-mortem reports under section 273 _(1) of theCriminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981. _The section provides that _an accused or his representative in his presence may, in any criminal proceedings, admit any fact relevant to the issue, and the admission shall be sufficient evidence of that fact._ 1\. **Statement of Makaka Mothibe** [48] He stated that on 23 May 2023, he identified the body of Mothibe Mothibe before the doctor performed a post-mortem examination. The statement was marked exhibit “A”. 2\. **The Post-mortem Report of Mothibe Mothibe** [49] It showed that death was due to traumatic intracerebral bleeding and traumatic internal bleeding. External Appearance: Presented with two entry gunshot wounds on the left side of the head with exits. Two bullet leads were recovered below the skin. Two entry gunshot wounds, right side of the chest and abdomen, with no exits, massive internal bleeding. Stomach: Internal bleeding. It was marked exhibit “B”. 3\. **The Post-Mortem Report of Ralikonelo Joki** [50] It shows that**** death was due to traumatic internal bleeding and traumatic intracerebral bleeding. Stomach: Massive collection of blood- intrathoracic and intrabdominal. It was marked exhibit “C”. 4\. **The Post-Mortem Report of Thomello Ntsane** [51] It shows that death was due to traumatic internal bleeding and traumatic intracerebral bleeding. External Appearance: Presented with two entry gunshot wounds on the right side of the head with one exit. One entry gunshot wound next to the left shoulder. Two entry gunshot wounds left the buttocks with exits. One entry gunshot wound next to the left shoulder, perforating through the lung, heart, and intestines- internal bleeding. Stomach- internal bleeding. It was marked exhibit “D”. 5\. **Identifying Statement of Motseki Joki** [52] He stated that on 16 May 2023, he identified the body of Ralikonelo Joki before the doctor performed a post-mortem examination. He observed injuries on the head, right shoulder, right hand, stomach, and right and left thighs. It was marked exhibit “E”. 6\. **Identifying Statement of Jeremane Joki** [53] He stated that on 16 May 2023, he identified the body of Ralikonelo Joki before the doctor performed a post-mortem examination. It was marked exhibit “F”. 7\. **Statement of Teketsi Maama** [54] He stated that on 20 May 2023, he received a report from Sekhobe Maama regarding the shooting incident in the village. In the morning, he went to the crime scene and observed that the blood drops on the ground were covered with soil. On 14 June 2023, police arrived at his house in the company of one Kumi and proceeded to Moabi Sesioana’s shop, stating that he knew the location. It was marked exhibit “G”. 8\. **Statement of Mshengu Tshabalala** [55] He stated that on 14 May 2023, around 21:40 hours, one Pali Maila called him informing him about the shooting incident concerning Ralikonelo Joki. He called the Public Relations Officer of the Lesotho Defence Force to request assistance. He also called Mr. Mopeli, who is a Police officer. He went to the crime scene and saw the deceased, who was still in his car, and the police arrived. It was marked exhibit “H”. 9\. **Identifying Statement of Tlelaka Ntsane** [56] He stated that on 23 May 2023, he identified the body of Thomello Ntsane before the doctor performed a post-mortem examination. It was marked exhibit “I”. 10\. **Identifying Statement of Malefane Thamae**. [57] He stated that on 23 May 2023, he identified the body of Mothibe Mothibe before the doctor performed a post-mortem examination. The statement was marked exhibit “J”. 11\. **Statement of ‘Mamolefi T’sehlana** [58] She stated that she was working at the business called Party Palace at Thamaea shopping centre. On 15 May 2023, around 08:00 am, she observed pieces of broken glass on the stoep. She found an empty cartridge as she swept broken glass off the stoep and handed it to Police Officer Mphephoka. The statement was marked Exhibit “K”. 12\. **Letter of Teketsi Maama** [59]**** The letter was addressed to the officer commanding Mofoka Police Post, reporting on the deaths of Mothibe Mothibe and Mamello Ntsane. Teketsi Maama authored the letter. The letter was an addendum to exhibit “G”. 13\. **Report of D/Sub/Insp Kubutu**. [60] He stated that on 14 May 2023, the death of Ralikonelo Joki was reported at Pitso Ground Police Station. He was the leader of the investigation team. He seized a vehicle, Honda Fit, registration number A 006 BCC, belonging to one Kumi. He seized three firearms, namely, a 9mm Star (serial number rubbed off), a 7.65mm Baretta (serial number rubbed off), and a 7.65 mm Taurus (serial number FHR 54782). On 22 June 2023, he applied for further detention of Mothusi, Sootho, and Kamo, and it was granted. On 25 June 2023, three firearms were sent for ballistic laboratory examination. The following suspects, Mothusi, Sootho, Kamo, and Moabi, were charged with the murder of Ralikonelo Joki. The LMPS 12 was filled concerning these items and the vehicle. 14\. **LMPS 12** [61] It shows the 9mm Star s/n rubbed off. 7.65 mm Pietro Beretta s/n rubbed off. 7.56 mm Tauras SA s/n FHR 54782. Reg. no A006 BCC, Engine no. VIN GE 61225794, Engine no. L13A4247866. It was marked exhibit “I’. 15\. **Ballistic Examination Report** [62] The report shows that on 15 May 2023, D/Sgt. Mphephoka submitted. i. 4 x 9mm cartridge case ii. 5 x 7.65 mm cartridge case. iii. 2 x bullets. On 17 May 2023, D/Sgt. Maraisane submitted: iv. 1 x bullet. On the 25 June 2023 D/Sub- Insp Kubutu submitted; v. 1 x 9mm pistol s/n rubbed off. vi. 1 x 7.65 pistol s/n rubbed off. vii. 1 x 7.65 pistol s/n FHR 54782. **Conclusion** The matching of individuals’ marks between the exhibits in para 3 (i) and 3(ii), and test samples generated by firearms in para 3 (v) and 3(vi) as indicated in figures 1 and 2 above, respectively, suggested that they were fired from the same firearm (s). The results do provide very strong evidence that exhibits in para 3 (i) and 3 (ii), were fired from firearm(s) in para 3 (v) and 3 (vi) above, respectively. It was marked exhibit “J” and the statement of Supt Mokoteli was marked exhibit “K”. **PW5- D/Sub Insp. Kubutu Kubutu** [63] He testified that he joined the Lesotho Mounted Police Service in 1989 and that he retired from the service in 2024. Before his retirement, he was attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). He knows the accused before the court. He led the investigation team formed to investigate this matter. The accused were arrested on 21st June 2023.The accused took the Police to Ha Thamae to point out the crime scene and how they killed the deceased. It was A1, A2, and A4 who went for pointing out. He submitted two 9mm pistols (S/N rubbed off) and a 7.65 mm pistol (S/N FHR 54782) for laboratory examination. These guns had been recovered from A3 in the Republic of South Africa. [64] He testified that his superiors had instructed him to report to the South African border post police station, as the arrangements had already been made for the crossing into South Africa concerning A3. He was accompanied to Klerksdorp by Police officers Masila, Maraisane, Mokoma, and Masankane. When they arrived at the border, A3 requested that his passport not be presented to the immigration office for processing due to the nature of his job. He said he did not make any inquiries to A3. He approached the officer in charge of the South African Police Service border police station, who cleared them to cross into South Africa. [65] They did not find guns at A3’s house, and A3 called someone, instructing that person to bring the guns to the cemetery. They went to the cemetery and waited until a grey Honda Fit emerged. The vehicle stopped next to A3, and the driver pointed at the back. A3 proceeded to the car's boot and retrieved a black Woolworths bag; the driver then drove off. The bag contained three guns, and these are the guns he submitted for ballistic examination. His statement was handed in and marked Exhibit “H”. The witness handed in the three guns, namely: 7.65 pistol, s/n rubbed off; 9mm pistol, s/n rubbed off; and 7.65 pistol, FHR 54782. The LMPS 12 was marked exhibit “I”. 7.65 pistol S.N FHR 54782 was marked exhibit “1”, 7.65 mm pistol s/n rubbed off, was marked exhibit “2”, and 9mm pistol s/n rubbed off, was marked exhibit “3”. [66] During cross-examination, the witness reaffirmed that his superiors had arranged with their South African Police Service counterpart to cross into South Africa. It was suggested to the witness that when they crossed the border into South Africa, A3’s passport was not processed at the immigration office, to which the witness agreed. It was suggested to the witness that A3 crossed the border illegally, and the witness replied that A3 was authorised to cross into South Africa. The defence suggested to the witness that the police kidnapped the accused and made him cross the border illegally, and the witness refuted this claim. [67] The defence suggested to the witness that the black bag contained gold and not guns, and the witness refuted this assertion. It was suggested to the witness that A3 does not know anything about the guns, and the witness replied that A3 handed a black bag containing guns to him. It was suggested to the witness that the accused had been assaulted and served stale food. The witness replied that none of them told him he had been assaulted. It was further suggested to the witness that the accused were detained for more than five days, without being fed, forced to wash the bucket used for relieving themselves in without protective clothing, and assaults caused the accused to make confessions and point out. The witness replied that the accused made the confessions and pointing out freely and voluntarily. **PW6- Thato Francis Mokoteli** [68]**** He stated that he is a Forensic Scientist based at Police Laboratory. In 2002, he obtained a BSc degree in biology and Chemistry at the National University of Lesotho, Centre for Accounting Studies; a Chartered Institute of Public Financial Accountancy Certificate in 2011, Centre for Accounting Studies, Chartered Institute of Public Financial Accountancy Diploma in 2012, Sheffield Hallam University; and a master’s degree in forensic science in 2013. [69] He conducted a ballistic examination on the exhibits. He examined three firearms and compiled two reports concerning two crime scenes. On the 15th May 2023, Police Mphephoka submitted 4 x 9mm cartridge cases, 5 x 7.65 cartridge cases, and two bullets. On 17 May 2023, Police Maraisane submitted one bullet. On 26th June 2023, Police Kubutu submitted a 9mm pistol, s/n rubbed off, a 7.65 pistol, s/n rubbed off, and a 7.65 pistol, s/n FHR 54782. The purpose of the submission of these items was to verify whether the guns were still in good condition, or whether cartridge cases and bullets had been fired from these guns. He examined all the exhibits and identified all three firearms. He referred to the ballistic report marked exhibit ‘J’. The report concerning the crime scene at Mokema was marked exhibit “K”. [70] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that he did not attend the crime scene, to which he agreed. It was further suggested to the witness that the items were brought to him by the crime scene investigators, to which the witness agreed. **PW7- Ntseuoa Lethuoa** [71] He testified that he resides at Ha Rantsetse and works as a recorder at a shearing company. He knows the accused before the court, and he has known A1, A3, and A4 for a long time. He was at the shop when the Police called them to listen to what A1 had to say. The police left with the suspects. Cross-examination of this witness did not produce anything significant. **PW8- Sechaba Kometsi** [72] He testified that he resides at Ha Rampoetsi Mokema. He knows the accused before the court, and he has known them for a long time. The chief instructed him to assist the police by listening to what the accused had to say. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. **PW9- Rapelang Chaka** [73] He testified that he resides at Mokema Lebenkeleng. He knows the accused persons before the court, as his co-villagers. He confirmed that he knew the deceased persons during their lifetime. [74] He testified that on the 20th May 2023, he was at work when Tsepang called him to invite him to drinks. When he knocked off, he found Tsepang Monatsi at the bus stop with A1. He picked them up from there and took them to Ha Rantsetse. When they arrived at Ha Rantsetse Tsepang got into the bar and came back carrying a quart of beer, while the witness remained in the car with A1. From there they travelled to Ha Mahloane, where he got out of the car and bought alcohol. Then they drove back to Ha Rantsetse, and on the way, Sekhobe Maama called him requesting to be picked up at Mahlabatheng. When they arrived at Ha Rantsetse, a grey Honda Fit car was parked by the side of the road. A1 instructed him to park next to that vehicle. A1 and Tsepang got out of the car and entered the other vehicle, and he then drove to Mahlabatheng to collect Sekhobe. He found Sekhobe in the company of another passenger. He dropped this passenger off at Koro-Koro Hukung, while he proceeded to Ha Rantsetse in the company of Sekhobe, where he bought a quart of beer, and then headed to Mokema. He parked the car at Lebenkeleng and walked with Sekhobe, heading to the Corner Pocket Bar. He bought another quart and then headed home. When he reached the passage leading to the corner pocket, he met Sekhobe (PW2) and A2, and shortly thereafter, A1 joined them. [75] A1 asked him if Mothibe was still in the bar, and he replied that Mothibe was still in the bar. After a short interval, Mothibe’s car drove away, moving downwards towards Mahlomola’s stop. The car took the gravel road on the left before it could reach Mahlomola’s stop. The vehicle approached them, and they hid among the aloes, as the car's lights illuminated them in the dark. [76] The car passed, and A1 and A2 followed it, while Sekhobe (PW2) and he remained at their hiding spots, at Mr. Konstabole’s yard. A1 and A2 went in front of the vehicle, the vehicle passed, and A1 and A2 followed it and started shooting at it, until it lost control. A2 opened the boot, entered the car while A1 was next to the car. Sekhobe approached the car, while A1 and A2 passed the alcohol they took in the car to Sekhobe. A1 also got into the car, and Sekhobe said they should leave. They went down the passage to the shops in the company of A1 and A2. When they arrived at Mr. Mosithe, the vehicle they had left at Ha Rantsetse arrived, though he could not identify the driver. A2 got into the vehicle while A1 and Sekhobe remained with them. They went to the car, and he drove with A1 and Tsepang to Ha Rantsetse. When they arrived at Ha Rantsetse, the shop was closed, and they went to a scaffle bar, and from there they went home. [77] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that he participated in the murder of Mothibe and Thomello, and the witness accepted that. It was suggested to him that he was as guilty, and he replied that he was guilty because he was present at the crime scene. It was suggested to the witness that he had not been charged so that he could implicate the accused, but the witness denied this. The witness was asked why he did not report the incident to the police, and he replied that he was scared to do so. It was put to the witness that he did not give the motive for the killing of the deceased, and the witness replied that he was not aware of the motive for killing the deceased. He added that he hid among the aloes to avoid the car lights, and he was not aware that the deceased were going to be killed. [78] The defence suggested to the witness that it was the witness and Sekhobe (PW2) who robbed Mothibe of his gun, and the witness denied this assertion. The defence suggested to the witness that the witness shot at Mothibe, robbed him of his gun, and handed the guns to A1 and A2, and the witness denied these assertions. It was suggested to the witness that A1 and A2 are guilty of receiving stolen property, and not murder, and the witness replied that he understood. **PW10- Tsepang Monatli** [79] He testified that he resides at Mokema. He knows the accused persons, as his co-villagers. He knew Mothibe Mothibe during his lifetime, but he did not know Thomello Ntsane during her lifetime. [80] On 20th May 2023, he was with A1 when he called Rapelang Chaka (PW9) to inquire about his whereabouts, as he wanted transport to take him to Ha Rantsetse. PW9 instructed them to wait for him at the Popoint bar. Later, he arrived, picked them up, and took them to Ha Rantsetse. He bought a quart of beer, and they then travelled to Ha Mapeshoane, where they bought more beer, and then returned to Ha Rantsetse. While at Ha Rantsetse, they got out of PW9’s car and into the Honda Fit. He found A2 and the driver in this vehicle, though he did not identify the driver. They drove to Mokema and went to the Corner Pocket Bar. The occupants in the vehicle were the witness, A1, A2, and the driver. When they arrived at Corner Pocket Bar, A1 and A2 alighted from the car, while he remained in the car with the driver. The witness and the driver left corner pocket and drove until they reached the tarred road. Later A1 and A2 arrived, and A2 got into the vehicle, and he travelled away with the driver. Along the way at Lebenkeleng, they encountered PW2 and PW9. Together, they went to Ha Rantsetse, where they found the bar closed. They went to Hukung Bar, where they bought some beer. From there, they returned to Mokema and went to a shop in the village. While they were there, they heard an alarm raised about a cash transit vehicle that had been involved in an accident. He went to the chief’s place in the company of PW2 to report the incident. From the chief’s place, they went to the scene. They found that it was Mothibe’s car, and people had gathered at the scene. Mothibe and the unidentified lady were removed from the vehicle. [81] The crown counsel applied that the witness be declared a hostile witness in terms of _section 274 (2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981._ The court asked the witness whether he had previously made a statement that was inconsistent with his evidence in the proceedings. The witness admitted he had previously made a statement to the Police and further admitted that it was inconsistent with his evidence in court. The court declared the witness hostile, and the Crown counsel was allowed to cross-examine this witness. [82] The crown counsel then asked the witness if he still maintained that he did not know who killed Ralikonelo Joki. He replied that he did not know who killed him, but A1 told him that they hit Ralikonelo Joki. It was suggested to the witness that he said he learned on social media that Ralikonelo Joki had been killed, and subsequently, he met A1, who told him they had hit Ralikonelo Joki. He was asked what he understood by A1’s statement. He replied that he did not understand what A1 meant. It was then suggested to him that in his statement, he asked A1 what he meant, and A1 clarified that they shot Ralikonelo Joki. The witness was then asked whether he still doubted that they shot Ralikonelo Joki. The witness replied that he still doubted because he did not witness the shooting. [83] During cross-examination by the defence counsel, the witness was informed that the police had recorded his statement, which he signed after it was read back to him, and he confirmed this. It was then suggested to the witness that he did not know who shot Ralikonelo Joki, Mothibe Mothibe, and Thomello Ntsane, to which he replied that he did not know. It was further suggested to the witness that in his statement, he had said he did not know who shot Ralikonelo Joki, but A1 told him that they had hit Ralikonelo Joki, and the witness confirmed this. **PW11- D/W/P/C ‘Malimpho Masenkane** [84] She testified that she was one of the investigators in this case. She knows the accused persons before the court. All the accused persons were arrested at Ha-Hoohlo along the Maseru border gate. The witness stated that A3, in his petition for bail, averred in his affidavit that he cooperated with the Police and that he volunteered to take the police to where the weapons were and that he would report himself at a certain police station. The witness stated that the Police opposed the bail petition. She testified that A3 took the police to where the guns were and handed them to the Police. She was in the company of Police officers Masila, Kubutu, Maraisane, and Mokone, when they took A3 to the Republic of South Africa for pointing out. They crossed the border into South Africa with A3. Approximately at 04:00, they arrived at Klerksdorp, Lombard Street, House No. 24, as A3 claimed it was his house. They found one lady who identified herself as Zanele, the wife of A3. A3 took them to the house, where there were only refuse bags. He picked a plastic bag, opened it, and said there were no guns in it. A3 called Zanele and asked for the phone, and he made a call. He instructed the person he called to meet with Mpho and to meet him at the cemetery, along with his property. [85] While they were at the cemetery, a grey Honda Fit emerged with two occupants; he identified one as Mpho Madamane from Mokema, but she did not identify the other. A3 approached the vehicle, and one of the occupants signalled to A3 to check the boot. A3 opened the boot and retrieved a black bag, and the vehicle left the scene immediately. [86] A3 opened the bag and said: “Here they are.” She peeped into the bag, and she saw three guns. Then they returned to Lesotho together with A3 and the three guns. She filled the submission form and took the guns and empty cartridges for ballistic examination. She testified that A3 had told them that Mothibe’s gun was in his possession. [87] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that when A3 was arrested, he had no guns on his person, except for cash, and the witness agreed with this claim. It was suggested to the witness that they had taken A3 to South Africa because the Police were interested in A3’s money, and the witness replied that they were interested in the guns. The witness was asked whether A3’s passport was processed at the border when crossing into South Africa, and the witness replied that she did not know. It was suggested to the witness that A3’s passport was not stamped before he crossed the border, to which the witness replied that she did not know. [88] It was suggested to the witness that they searched A3’s house, to which the witness denied. She added that A3 went into the house, picked up a plastic bag, opened it, and looked into it in their presence. When asked whether they had a search warrant, the witness replied that they did not. It was suggested to the witness that A3 knew nothing about the three guns, but the witness replied that A3 did. It was suggested to the witness that the black bag contained gold, as A3 was dealing in precious stones. The witness replied that he did not see gold but guns in the bag. It further suggested to the witness that the Police took A3 to South Africa, illegally, without proper authorisation, or kidnapped him, in order to lay their hands on his gold, and the witness refuted these claims and asserted that they were looking for guns. [89] It was suggested to the witness that the guns that were taken for ballistic examination were not the ones that A3 handed over to the Police, because A3’s guns were in the black bag. The witness asserted the guns taken for ballistic analysis were the ones seized from A3. It was suggested to the witness that A3 had been assaulted, but the witness did not know. **PW12- Papiso Matsoso** [90] He testified that he resides at Ha-Abia and is employed at Lesotho Flour Miss. On a date he could not recall, he received a call from A2 inquiring about the presenter on air at T’senolo FM. He replied that he was not listening to the radio, as he was at the bar. They had been friends for two years by then, as he had been residing in Ha Abia since 2019. A2 asked him at which bar he was, and he replied that he was at Tseliso’s bar. A2 invited him to his house, and when he arrived, A2 was listening to the radio. PW12 confirmed that the presenter on air was Ralikonelo Joki, as listeners were calling him by his name. A2 was in the company of people he could not identify. He went back to the bar to watch soccer. In the morning, he learned through social media that the presenter of T’senolo FM, whose identity had not been disclosed yet, had been shot. [91] On Monday, he went to work and later that day learned that the deceased was Ralikonelo Joki. He did not meet with A2, as A2 was in the Republic of South Africa, but they communicated via WhatsApp, and A2 promised to send him some money for liquor, as the witness stated he did not have any. After quite a long time, he saw A2’s picture posted on the LMPS Facebook page as a wanted person in relation to Ralikonelo Joki’s murder. A2 told him that he was aware that he was wanted by the Police. The next day, when he was around the Pitso Ground Police station, he saw the accused boarding a Police vehicle. [92] On a Friday of that week, he received information that the Police were looking for him. Indeed, the Police called him to report to the Pitso Ground Police Station. He stated that A2 introduced him to A1 and that he has had about 3 to 4 encounters with A1. When he knocked off from work, he met with A2 and inquired about why he wanted Ralikonelo Joki. A2 said he would tell him, but the witness insisted on knowing what he wanted him for. A2 said that after the witness had left his house, they went to the radio station premises. Then the witness asked A2 if he was the one responsible for the shooting at Tsenolo FM. A2 confirmed that he was responsible for the shooting incident at the station premises. The witness stated that he did not inquire from A2 as to the number of people who participated in the shooting. [93] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that he did not know who killed Joki, except what he was told, and the witness replied that he did not know. It was put to the witness that the Police warned him if he did not agree with everything they knew, they would do something to him. The witness replied that the Police told him they knew he was not involved, and he told them that A2 asked him if the presenter that was on air was Joki, and he confirmed that A2 had made that inquiry from him. **PW13- Sergeant Tokelo Makoloane** [94] He testified that he joined the Lesotho Mounted Police Service in 2008 and is currently stationed at Police Headquarters. He knows the accused persons before the court. On the 20th May 2023, Inspector Moleko instructed him to attend a crime scene at Mokema. Approximately, around 08:00 pm, Police Lekunye picked him up at his home, and they travelled to Mokema, in the company of Police officers Makhooane, Masenkane, and Rakhoboso. They found people already gathered at the crime scene, and he observed that Special Operations Unit officers (SOU) were also present. [95] He saw a Mazda Tribune car which had capsized, and it was supported by a yolk. (Joko). There were two people in the vehicle: the driver was seated in the driver’s seat, while the other person was sitting behind the driver. He saw pieces of glass and blood on them. They took the bodies out of the car. On examination of Mothibe, he observed multiple gunshot wounds on the face and head. Thomelle Ntsane sustained multiple wounds on the face and head. He found six cartridges of 9mm calibre and seven cartridges of 7.65mm calibre. There were three bullet holes on the windscreen. He found a copy of 7.65mm caliber firearm licence in the cabin hole of the vehicle, showing the names of Mothibe Mothibe. They parked the car at one Konstabole’s yard. [96] When they arrived at the mortuary, he re-examined the bodies and observed that Mothibe sustained multiple wounds on the face, chest, and back, while Thomello Ntsane sustained multiple wounds on the face, head, and front side of the body. He filled the Occurrence Book and exhibit register concerning the shells, filled LMPS 12 and the submission form, and took these items for ballistic examination. He also filled out LMPS 12 regarding the vehicle. Around June 2023, the accused were arrested at a roadblock along Hoohlo Road. [97] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that the accused persons were assaulted. The witness replied that in his presence, the accused were not assaulted. **PW14- Khiba Khiba** [98] He testified that he resides at Mokema and is a farmer. He knows the accused persons before the court, as they are co-villagers. He knew the deceased persons during their lifetime. [99] On a date he could not recall, he was at the shop enjoying alcoholic beverages when Tsukune Shale arrived and reported that he had heard gun reports emerging from the direction of his kraal. He went to the crime scene with Tsukane Shale. They found a car that had capsized, with people inside. They raised an alarm to one Kostabole, as the car was at his gate. The villagers gathered at the crime scene, and later the Police arrived. The cross-examination of this witness was not significant. **PW15- Tlotlisang Maqapalla** [100] He testified that he lives at Ha-Abia, Pena Pena. He is self-employed as a motor mechanic. It was on a Sunday in 2023 between the end of May or early June of that year, while he was at the bar of one Sepekere at Thoteng. Teboho Kumi (PW1) arrived in his blue Honda Fit, registration number A006BBC. One person requested PW1 to transport him to Makhoakhoeng, and before they could reach the tar road, he received a call from someone who wanted transport. They picked up this passenger and there were four of them in the vehicle. They dropped one customer at Makhoakhoeng and then drove to Sekamaneng to drop off the last customer. From Sekamaneng, they drove to Tsenola to transport another customer. He remained in the vehicle with PW1, and PW1 told him that A1 and A2 were the people responsible for shooting at Ralikonelo Joki. [101] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that he was intoxicated. The witness replied he had been drinking, but he could not say he was that much intoxicated. The cross-examination of this witness did not yield any significant information. **PW16- Detective Inspector Seeko** [102] He testified that he is a member of the Lesotho Mounted Police Service and has 25 years of service. On the fateful night, Detective Police Constable Makhetha attended the crime scene. The following day, he visited the crime scene with Police Mphephoka. He found a white 4x4 vehicle that had collided with the bar's wall. One lady working at the bar handed him an empty 9mm cartridge. They removed the vehicle from the crime scene. The Police were told that the deceased was the driver of this vehicle. LMPS 12 was filled with respect to this vehicle. [103] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that the crime scene had not been cordoned off, and the witness agreed with this assertion, adding that he attended the crime scene for its reconstruction because the police officers who had attended it had cordoned it off. It was suggested to the witness that, since a lady handed an empty cartridge to them, this indicated contamination of the crime scene, to which the witness did not agree. During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether he had taken pictures of the crime scene, to which he replied that he had not, and added that DPC Makhetha had taken pictures, though they had not been printed due to budgetary constraints. **PW17- Moitheri Mashalane** [104] He testified that he resides at Ha Matala and is employed as a cab driver. On a date he could not recall, Poloko informed him that people had requested transport to the border gate. They took these customers to their destination, and the witness was the driver. When they passed near the Catholic church at Ha Abia, A2 (Sootho Liphoto) produced a gun and showed it to one Moholi, who was sitting in the front seat. They exchanged the firearm among themselves, and each of them was eager to hold it. The witness took the gun and kept it under the driver’s seat, as he felt unsafe. As they approached the border post, he retrieved the gun from under the seat and handed it to A2. [105] They waited for A2, who said he was taking the gun to the South African side. Approximately, after about 30 minutes, A2 returned and requested to be transported to Mokema, to deliver money to someone there, who waited for them at Mokema. From there, he dropped one person at Ha Penapena and the other one at the Chinese shop. He clarified that people who travelled with him to Mokema were A2, Poloko, and Moholi. He first became aware of A3 when the vehicle was fuelled at the border gate, where he learned that A3 had sent A2 and his company to Mokema. [106] During the cross-examination, the witness was asked how many people he transported to the border post. The witness replied that there were five people, and that he was the sixth. It was suggested to the witness that A3 had not sent him to Mokema, and the witness replied that he had never seen or heard about A3. It was suggested to the witness that he was not in a position to know for sure whether A3 had instructed A2 and his company to take the money to Mokema. The witness replied he was not in a position to say so. **PW 17- Detective Inspector Seeko** [107] He stated that he is a member of the Lesotho Mounted Police Service, with 25 years of service. The following day after the shooting incident at Lower Thamae, he attended the crime scene with Police Officer Mphephoka. Opposite Ts’enolo FM, there is a bar facing T’senolo FM, and there is a tarred road between these buildings. A white 4x4 had collided with the bar's wall. A lady whose identity she could not remember handed a 9mm shell to Police Mphephoka. They removed the vehicle from the crime scene to the Police Station. LMPS 12 was filled concerning the vehicle. [108] During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether the crime scene had been cordoned off; the witness responded that it had not. The defence then put it to the witness that the scene had therefore been contaminated. The witness disagreed with this assertion because the lady found the shell after examining the crime scene. It was suggested to the witness that, when he arrived at the crime scene, it had already been contaminated. The witness replied that since Police officer Makhetha had attended the crime after the shooting incident, there was no way they could say the crime scene had been contaminated. It was suggested to the witness that he did not take pictures at the crime scene. The witness replied that Police Makhetha took the photos. It was further suggested to the witness that the defence was not served with the photos, to which the witness replied that the photos had not been printed due to financial constraints. It was further suggested to the witness that A1, A2, and A4 were within the vicinity of the crime scene; however, A1 and A2 alighted the car to urinate and went back into the car. The witness replied that A1 and A2 placed themselves at the crime scene. [109] The defence then closed its case. **APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS** [110] The defence applied for the discharge of A3 and A4, in terms of _section 175 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ , on the ground that there was no direct evidence that links A3 and A4 to the commission of the crime, because the crown failed to prove their participation in the charges they are facing. The defence further submitted that the Crown has not proved common purpose on the part of A3 and A4, as it did not adduce evidence that they participated in any planning. The defence therefore prayed that A3 and A4 be acquitted because the crown’s evidence has not linked them to the charges preferred against them. [111] The defence counsel referred the court to the case of **_Rex v Ketsepile Moeletsi and Others_**** _**[1]**_****_,_** and **_Tseliso Nthane_**** _**[2]**_****_._** **THE LAW.** [112] _Section 175 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981 (Act)_ , provides that: _“If, at the close of the case for the prosecution, the court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence charged in the charge or any other offence of which he might be convicted thereon, the court may return a verdict of not guilty.”_ [113] The issue to be determined by this court at this stage is whether the Crown has established a prima facie case upon which a reasonable court might convict the accused. See **_Matsobane Putsoa v Rex_**[3]_._ [114] **Cotran C.J** in the case of **_Rex v Teboho Tamati_**[4]**__** propounded the law as follows: “ _Furthermore, the courts, it has been said should not at this stage embark upon a final assessment of credibility and should leave that matter in abeyance until the defence have closed their case and then weigh the two together. In Lesotho, however, our system is such that the Judge is the final arbiter on law and fact so that he is justified if he feels that the credibility of the witnesses has been irretrievably shattered in saying to himself that he is bound to acquit, no matter what the accused might say in his defence short of admitting the offence_.” [115] At this stage, the court is not concerned with the credibility of witnesses. The simple test is whether the Crown has established a prima facie case against the accused. [116] The evidence of PW2 is to the effect that while they were at the mountain top, A3 told him that he had ordered a hit on Mothibe Mothibe, and that he should be robbed of his gun. Indeed, Mothibe Mothibe was shot dead and robbed of his gun. [117] Mpho Matamane- PW3 testified that A3 called him, instructing him to take one Botsonyane to A3’s house to collect guns. When they arrived at A3’s house, Botsonyane went into the house, and returned carrying a black bag. The following day, A3 instructed him to pick Botsonyane from his house and take him to the graveyard. He picked up Botsonyane and together they drove to Klerksdorp, where they found A3 in the company of Lesotho Police. He stated that Botsonyane handed the black bag to A3, and they left the scene. PW3 testified that on one occasion he approached A3 who was in the company of A1 and A2. A2 asked him if he had not seen Mothibe Mothibe at Mahlabatheng. A2 asked him to inform him if he could see Mothibe, because he wanted to shoot him. [118] Both PW5 and PW11 corroborate each other that A3 handed over three guns to them at Klerksdorp, while A3 said he handed over money and gold in a black bag. PW5 testified that he submitted these guns for ballistic examination. The ballistic report- Exhibit J, shows that the two guns that had been retrieved from A3, were linked to the murders of Ralikonelo Joki at Ha Thamae, Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane at Mokema. There was undisputed evidence that the third gun belonged to the deceased Mothibe Mothibe. Similarly, this was the gun PW5 and PW11 said was retrieved from A3. [119] Coming to A4, PW1 testified that he transported A1, A2, and A4 to Tsenolo FM premises, where Joki was shot. He testified that A1 and A2 went out carrying guns, and shortly thereafter, he heard gun reports and the deceased’s car collided with the wall. A4 remained in the vehicle, and after the shooting incident, A1 and A2 joined them and instructed PW1 to drive away. PW1 testified that he asked them why they killed the deceased, and A2 said the deceased was too pompous, and A2 called someone reporting that they had shot Joki and he was dead. This incident occurred in the presence of A4, and there is no evidence that A4 disassociated himself with the commission of this offence. [120] PW2 testified that A4 was among the people who came to his house looking for the contact details of Joki. He said he asked them for what reason they wanted contacts for, and they said they were going to kill him. When he asked for the motive, they said it was a feud over initiation school. [121] When considering the totality of the evidence presented by the Crown, there is evidence that links both A3 and A4 with the commission of the offences they are facing. **Conclusion** [122] In a nutshell, this court finds that the Crown has established a prima facie case against A3 and A4; therefore, A3 and A4 have a case to answer. The application for the discharge of A3 and A4 in respect of all the charges is accordingly rejected. **DEFENCE’S CASE** **DW1-Mothusi Tlelase** [123] He testified that he lives in Mokema and knows the co-accused, as they are from the same area. He used to stay at A2’s home because A2’s mother had asked him to, especially when A2 was living in Ha Abia. He knows A3 as they grew up together and attended the same primary school. He met A4 in 2006 while he was an initiate at his uncle’s school, and he would occasionally encounter A4 in Maseru. [124] In April 2023, he relocated to Maseru to receive training on operating heavy machinery. On 14 May 2023, between 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm, he arrived at A2’s home in Ha Abia, where he found A2 drinking alcoholic beverages. Later that evening, A2 informed him that he needed to take his gun to someone named Poloko in Ha Thamae because Poloko was interested in buying it. [125] At around 8:00 pm, A2 informed him that he had secured a taxi to take them to Ha-Thamae. They left for Sepekere’s bar, where they planned to board the taxi. A2 was carrying a 7.62 caliber pistol. As they entered the bar, they passed the vehicle parked at the gate. The bar was crowded with patrons, and they ran into A4. A2 bought some beer, and A4 asked him where they were headed. A1 replied that they were going to Ha-Thamae, and A4 asked him to join them on their journey. [126] They (A1, A2, and A4) got into the car and found the driver (PW1) and his companion. PW1 and his companion were drinking alcoholic beverages. They travelled to Ha-Thamae, and PW1 stopped the vehicle at a shack where music was playing. PW1 asked them to buy him a cigarette, and A2 gave some coins to PW1 for that purpose. Once PW1 finished smoking, he got back into the car and drove off until they reached the main road leading to the Thamae shopping centre. [127] When they arrived at the junction where the routes to Tsenola and Thamae Shopping Centre split, he asked PW1 to stop so he could urinate. He noticed that A2 also stepped out of the car to do the same. After he got back in the car, A2 remained outside, speaking on the phone. A2 eventually returned to the car and suggested they go to Masianokeng because the person they had come to meet at Ha-Thamae was at Masianokeng. [128] He testified that it was incorrect to say he was carrying a gun; only A2 had a gun. He denied that PW1 was threatened into transporting them to Ha-Thamae, and he also denied that A4 was instructed to keep watch over PW1. He reiterated that he stood by the vehicle to urinate and did not move away from the car. He mentioned that there was no wall where he was standing and that he did not hear any gunshots. He added that it was dark inside the car because none of them turned on the lights. Additionally, he confirmed that they did not enter Tsenolo FM's yard; they only passed by in the car. He stated that if they had entered the Tsenolo FM yard, a security guard would have been present to notice them. [129] He testified that PW1 seemed very intoxicated. He denied PW1's claim that he was carrying a firearm and further stated that the driver would not have been able to see if the passengers in the back seat were armed. After leaving Ha-Thamae, they travelled to Masianokeng but stopped at Twisters Bar in Matala to purchase liquor. When the witness and A2 returned from Twisters Bar, he noticed that A4 was missing. After leaving Twisters Bar, A2 drove the car to Masianokeng. [130] Upon arriving at Masianokeng, A2 got into a vehicle that was already parked there. A short time later, A2 returned with Poloko while A2 went into the bar to buy some beer. From there, they traveled to Abia using a bypass route. On their way to Abia, they stopped at an unidentified location to drop off a gentleman whose identity was also unknown. Afterward, they went to Tsepo’s bar at Penapena. When the bar closed, A2, Poloko, and PW1 left for A2’s place, where PW1 dropped off both the witness and A2. [131] On the 18th May 2023, he was at Letele’s shop, when PW2 joined him. PW2 asked him if he did not know anyone who would be interested in buying a gun, as he was selling one. He informed PW2 that A2 was looking for a gun, and he would inquire from A2 if he was interested. He phoned A2 about the sale of the gun, and A2 seemed interested in buying the gun, asking the witness to negotiate a discount of M500.00, as PW2 said he was selling the gun for M1,500. PW2 said he would first have to talk to PW9 about the proposed discount, because they owned the gun jointly. A2 further said that he would only be able to get the gun on Saturday, as he would have money on Saturday. [132] On 20 May 2023, the witness was with Tsepang Monatli (PW10) at the Corner Pocket Bar. Wanting to go to Ha Rantsetse, PW10 called Rapelang (PW9), who operated a taxi to take them there. Eventually, PW9 transported them to Ha Rantsetse. Around 7:00 pm, A2 called the witness to ask about the whereabouts of PW2, as he was ready to collect the gun. The witness informed A2 that he did not know where PW2 was but advised A2 that he was in the company of PW9. [133] Ultimately, A2 arrived in PW1's car, accompanied by Moeketsi. Shortly thereafter, PW9 called A2 to inform him that they should meet at the Corner Pocket Bar in Mokema. Later, PW9 and PW2 arrived and joined A2 and the witness. After that, PW1 drove away from the bar. [134] PW9, PW2, the witness, and A2 then went to a secluded area where it was dark. PW2 took out a gun and handed it to A2, who made a payment to PW2 in return. Following this, the witness and A2 left PW2 and PW9 behind and headed to Lebenkeleng, where PW1 was waiting for them. Upon arriving in Lebenkeleng, A2 got into the car while PW10 got out. The witness and PW10 then walked into the village. [135] On their journey, they met PW2 and PW9, who invited them to join them on the way to Koro-Koro. Upon arriving in Koro-Koro, they visited the Sceffo Sceffo bar, where PW2 bought some beer. Later, the witness, along with PW2 and PW9, returned to Mokema. While PW9 went to park the vehicle, the witness stayed with PW2 and PW10. They walked to Ramotso’s bar but found it closed, prompting the witness to go home and sleep. The witness denied any involvement in the shooting of Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane, and he also stated that he did not rob them of their belongings. [136] He stated that PW1 implicated them in the commission of murder, so that the Police could release his vehicle back to him. The witness stated he went to PW2’s home alone on 18 May 2023, and that Joki was already deceased by that time. [137] On 22 May 2023, he left for Rustenburg with A2. On 20 June 2023, he saw on social media that he, A2, and A4 were wanted by the police in connection with the murders of Ralikonelo Joki and Mothibe Mothibe. A2 and the witness contacted A3 to explain the situation and request money for transportation to Lesotho. A3 informed them that he was in Klerksdorp and asked them to travel there. They went to Klerksdorp, where they met A3, who was accompanied by two unidentified men. From there, they travelled to Steeilfontein to pick up A4, and then proceeded to Lesotho. [138] The occupants of the vehicle were A1, A2, A3, A4, and two unidentified men. They arrived at the Maseru Border gate around 2:00 am and were later arrested by the police near Tren Tyre at Ha-Hoohlo. Following their arrest, they were taken to the Pitso Ground Police Post. While in police custody the police assaulted them. The police forced him to squat inside a truck tire, kicked him on the shoulders, and electrocuted him in an attempt to compel him to admit involvement in the murders of Joki and Mothibe. He reported that the police assaulted both him and his co-accused multiple times while they were in custody. [139] The police presented three guns to the witnesses and asked if they could identify them. He identified the gun that PW2 sold to A2. Finally, he testified that no guns were found in his possession. **Inspection in Loco** [140] On 5th August 2025, at around 14:45 hours, the court conducted an inspection at Ha-Thamae to examine the location where A1 (DW1) stopped to urinate. All accused persons, along with both the defence counsel and the crown counsel, attended the inspection. [141] DW1 directed the court to the four-way stop, indicating that the car had halted there to check for oncoming traffic. While the car was stopped, DW1 took the opportunity to exit the vehicle and urinate. He noticed that A2 was also urinating on the right side of the road. Afterward, DW1 got back into the car and saw that A2 was speaking on the phone. [142] Ultimately, A2 returned to the vehicle and informed them that the person they were supposed to meet at Ha-Thamae was actually in Masianokeng, prompting them to head there instead. The car made a left turn and headed to the intersection from Lakeside, passing Thamae Shopping Centre on the right and Tsenolo Fm on the left side. Upon reaching the intersection, they turned left and drove towards Masianokeng. [143] Both counsel concurred that the four-way stop where DW1 stopped to urinate is approximately one kilometre from Thamae Shopping Centre. The court noted that the car stopped by a stop sign post on the left side of the road, while A4 urinated next to an old telephone booth on the right side. On the left side of the road, there is a drainage, while on the right, there is a walkway or pavement. [144] During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether the relationship between the witness and PW2 was cordial, and the witness agreed. It was put to the witness that PW2 said A3 ordered a hit on Mothibe Mothibe because A3 wanted Mothibe Mothibe's gun, and the witness replied that he had heard PW2 say that. It was then suggested to the witness that Mothibe’s gun was found in the possession of A3, and the witness replied that he did not know about that. [145] During cross-examination, it was put to the witness that the location he pointed to as the place where he stopped to urinate was approximately one kilometre from Tsenolo FM, and the witness replied that he had not measured the distance. It was then suggested to the witness that Ralikonelo Joki was shot at Tsenolo Fm premises, and not at the location he took the court to, and the witness replied that he heard that. [146] During cross-examination, it was put to the witness that PW2 testified that the witness came to his home and asked for the contact details of Ralikonelo Joki, and the witness replied that he remembered that. It was then suggested to the witness that after asking for Ralikonelo Joki’s contact numbers, Ralikonelo Joki had died, and the witness replied that he had not heard that. [147] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that PW9 and the witness had cordial relations, and the witness confirmed this suggestion. The crown then suggested that PW9 had no reason to implicate the witness, and the witness replied that PW9 had a motive to implicate him, because he stopped visiting them at the prison. Crown then put it to the witness that PW9 testified that the witness and A2 ambushed Mothibe Mothibe, to which the witness denied. It was suggested further that PW9’s evidence was corroborated by PW2, about ambushing Mothibe and shooting him, and the witness denied any knowledge about this. [148] The crown put it to the witness that his lawyer said he went to Tsenolo Fm premises to urinate, and the witness replied that he did not remember his lawyer saying that. It was suggested to the witness that PW1 said he dropped them at Tsenolo FM, and the witness replied that PW1 said they came running as they slapped the vehicle. It was put to the witness that Police Seeko testified that he found dead shells at the crime scene at Thamae, and the witness replied that Police Seeko talked about one shell and not shells. The witness was then asked whether that was the location he took the court to, and he replied that he had taken the court to the location where he was on the 14th May. It was suggested to the witness that PW2 had never been cross-examined about the sale of the gun, and he replied that he was unaware. [149] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that he had agreed with A4 to accompany A2 to Ha-Thamae, where A2 intended to sell the gun, and the witness confirmed this suggestion. It was then suggested that on the day Mothibe Mothibe was shot, the witness facilitated the sale of a gun at Mokema, and the witness agreed with this suggestion. It was then put to the witness that on 14th May, when he was involved, Ralikonelo Joki was killed, similarly on the 20th May, he was involved in the alleged sale of a gun, and Mothibe was killed, and the witness replied that where he was involved, no one was killed. [150] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that during the cross-examination of PW1, the defence lawyer had put it to PW1 that the witness and A2 had asked PW1 to stop the car at Thamae Shopping Centre so that they could urinate. The witness replied that his lawyer did not understand. The crown counsel then put it to the witness that the defence counsel had placed them at the crime scene, and the witness replied that he understood. **DW2- Sootho Liphoto** [151] He testified that he is from Mokema and currently resides in Abia. He is employed as a taxi driver and used to sell firearms, though he was not a licensed dealer. He knows A1 as they come from the same village of Mokema, and A1 used to stay at his homestead as a caretaker. He is acquainted with A3 as a co-villager, while A4 is his brother-in-law, because A4 is married to his younger sister. [152] He stated that on Sunday, 14 May 2023, at approximately 2:00 pm, he left for Matseli’s bar, bought three quarts of beer, and returned home. A1 arrived, and they drank together. Between 4:00 and 5:00 pm, one Poloko Nkoale called him, informing him that he had secured a client interested in buying the gun; therefore, they should meet later at 6 Pounds, Ha-Thamae. He testified that he called PW1 for transport, and PW1 informed him that he was still busy fixing the car. Later, between 07:00 and 08:00 pm, PW1 called him, informing him to meet at Sepekere’s bar. He then went to Sepekere’s bar accompanied by A1. They entered the bar and bought some beer, and he observed that A1 was talking to A4. He stated that he, A1, and A4 entered PW1’s car, and they found PW1 in the company of Atang Majara. They travelled to Ha-Thamae, and Atang Majara fell asleep after becoming intoxicated. [153] They proceeded to Lower Thamae, and when they reached a four-way stop, A1 got out of the vehicle to urinate. He also got out of the car to urinate and called Poloko to inquire about his location. He got back into the car and told PW1 to take them to Masianokeng because the person they had come for was located there. He stated that it was dark in the car, as the streetlights were off. He testified that he was urinating, and he heard firecrackers sound around the 6 Pound area. [154] He disputed PW1’s evidence that he and A1 slapped and entered PW’s vehicle after PW1 had seen the vehicle collide with the wall. They drove off and when they reached Dion area, the vehicle veered off the road slightly, and the witness said he asked PW1 to let him drive, but PW1 refused. When they reached Twisters Bar, they asked PW1 to stop so they could buy some drinks, and the witness and A1 entered the bar. When they returned, he observed that A4 was no longer in the car, and he occupied the driver’s seat and drove off to Masianokeng. When they arrived, he got into a car already parked there and found three occupants, including Poloko. He handed the gun to Poloko, who then passed it to the driver, who paid for it, and he left the vehicle, accompanied by Poloko. He went into the bar and bought some drinks, while Poloko got into PW1’s car. From there, they took a bypass route and dropped Atang at his home and then went to Tsepo’s bar. They left the bar when it closed and dropped Poloko at his house, and from there, he handed the car to PW1 and then went home. [155] He testified that on 20 May 2023, he asked PW1 to transport him to his sister’s home at Mazenod, and ultimately, he traveled to Mazenod accompanied by PW1 and Moeketsi. He testified that he called A1, asking him to inform PW2 that he would come to Mokema to pick up the gun that PW2 was selling. Later, he headed to Ha Rantsetse, and he found A1 and PW10. However, shortly thereafter, A1 informed him that PW2 and PW9 had requested a meeting at Corner Pocket in Mokema, but upon their arrival, PW2 and PW9 were not present. [156] He testified that later PW2 called stating that they should meet at the passage where there are aloes behind the shop. He went to the designated location accompanied by A1, and when they arrived PW2 took out the gun and he took out the money and handed it over to PW2. He testified that thereafter he went to Lebenkeleng accompanied by A1. When they reached the car, he got into it, while PW10 alighted, and he traveled away, accompanied by PW1 and Moeketsi. He disputed PW1’s evidence that he was carrying three guns when he entered the car; instead, he was carrying one firearm that had been sold to him by PW2 and PW9. He testified that he had put this firearm in his pocket; therefore, it was invisible. [157] He testified that he informed Poloko that he had a gun for sale. On May 21, 2023, he went to the border with Moeketsi, Poloko, Moholi, and Moitheri, who was the driver. Upon arriving at the border, Poloko introduced an unidentified man to the witness, and this man purchased the gun. He testified that eventually he became aware that PW2 and PW9 obtained the gun from Mothibe Mothibe. From there, they went to Mokema, but returned immediately and went to Ea Rona Bar, where they had a braai, and later went home. On 28 May 2023, he left for Rustenburg, accompanied by A1. [158] He testified that on 20 June 2023, he noticed on social media that he, A1, and A4 were wanted by the Police, regarding the murders of Ralikonelo Joki, Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane. He called A3 about this situation, and A3 asked the witness and A1 to join him in Klerksdorp. From there, they went to Steelfontein to pick up A4. He testified that he, A1, A3, A4 and two unidentified men travelled to Lesotho. They crossed the border into Lesotho, and when they reached Ha-Hoohlo, near Tren Tyre shop, they were arrested by the Police and were detained at Mejametalana Police Post. The following day, they were taken to Pitso Ground Police Post. He testified that the Police tortured him. The Police presented three guns to him and asked him if he identified them. He stated that he identified the one that had been sold to him by PW2. [159] During cross-examination, it was put to the witness that after he had sought the contact details of Ralikonelo Joki, Joki was gunned down. The witness replied that he never looked for Joki’s contact numbers but became aware that he had been shot. During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that during the cross-examination of PW1, the defence put it to PW1 that both A1 and A2 asked PW1 to stop at Thamae Shopping Centre so that they could urinate. The crown then added that, coincidentally, Tsenolo FM is opposite Thamae Shopping Centre. The witness replied that they just passed Thamae Shopping Centre without stopping. Further, during cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that he did not buy the gun from PW2; instead, he killed Mothibe Mothibe and robbed him of his gun, and the witness denied this suggestion. The crown suggested to the witness that the gun he took to the border gate ended up in the hands of A3, and the witness denied this assertion. [160] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that PW12 testified that he had asked the witness what he wanted Joki for, and whether the witness went there and whether he was responsible for the shooting, and PW12 stated that the witness replied they were responsible, and the witness denied this assertion. The crown then suggested to the witness that he did not dispute PW12’s evidence that he told PW12 that he killed Joki. The witness replied that he did not dispute this piece of evidence because the Police had fed that information to PW12. [161] Further during cross-examination the crown suggested to the witness that PW12 testified that the witness called PW12 to his house, and upon his arrival, the witness asked PW12 to confirm whether the presenter on Tsenolo FM was Joki. It was put to him that PW12 told the witness the presenter was Joki, but the witness denied this. Then the crown asked the witness why he had called PW12, and the witness denied having called PW12 to his house. Crown then suggested to the witness that the defence counsel did not dispute this evidence, and the witness replied that he was not aware that the defence did not challenge it. It was put to the witness that the gun he claimed to have sold belonged to Mothibe Mothibe, and the witness replied that the Police told him it belonged to Mothibe. The crown then suggested to the witness that the two guns that were retrieved from A3 were linked to the shooting incidents at both Ha Thamae and Mokema, and the witness replied that he was not aware. **DW3-Kamo Phakoe** [162] He testified that he resides in Ha-Letsie Berea. On 14 May 2023, he went to Sepekere’s bar in Abia. Later, A1 and A2 arrived at the bar. He approached A1 to ask where they were heading, and A1 replied that they were going to Ha-Thamae. He then asked to join them on their trip to Ha-Thamae, and A1 agreed. The witness then joined A1 and A2, and when they got into the car, he found two other individuals, Marapo and Matebo. On the way to Ha-Thamae, PW1 stopped the car and asked A2 to buy cigarettes for him, which A2 obliged. When they reached the junction that leads to Tsenola, PW1 stopped the car, and A1 and A2 got out to urinate. A1 returned to the car, followed by A2, who was speaking on the phone. He testified that A2 mentioned the person they had come to meet was in Masianokeng, leading A2 to instruct PW1 to take them there. When they arrived at Ha-Matala, PW1 parked the car, and A1 and A2 got out of the vehicle, after which he departed. [163] He testified that when the vehicle stopped at the junction leading to Tsenola, he did not lock PW1 and another person named Marapo in the car, nor did he threaten them in any manner. [164] On 20 June 2023, he became aware that his picture was circulating on social media, indicating that the police wanted him. Later that evening, he met A1, A2, and A3 in Molefi’s car. During this meeting, a person named Mentla informed him that he was heading to Lesotho, and he decided to join Mentla, along with A1, A2, and A3, on the trip to Lesotho. On 21 June 2023, they crossed the border into Lesotho, where they were arrested. He mentioned that he knew A3 well, as he had sung for him at the initiation school. The last time he had seen A3 was on 18 May 2023. On that day, he went to PW2's home with A3, where they met PW2 and PW9. After leaving PW2's home, they went to Ha-Lebakae, and he left A3 there while he went to Letele’s shop. This was the last time he saw A3 before 20 June 2023. The witness denied that he, A1, and A2 met with PW2 and PW9, but admitted that he, A3 and one Phakoe met PW2 and PW9. [165] He testified that on 21 June 2023, he was arrested along with A1, A2, and A3. He explained in detail how the police tortured him and his co-accused. He testified that on 20 May 2023, he was not in the company of A1, A2, and PW1. [166] During cross-examination, the witness denied meeting with PW2 and PW9 at A3’s shop to conspire to kill Mothibe Mothibe. However, he admitted that he had accompanied A1 and A2 to Ha Thamae, where the murder of the deceased, Joki, took place. The witness confirmed that he saw A1 and A2 get out of the vehicle, but he did not hear any gunshots. When it was suggested that he had held PW1 hostage, the witness denied this claim. **DW4- Moabi Sesioana** [167] He testified that he resides in Klerksdorp and Mokema. He stated that he operates several businesses. He testified that he is married and has two children aged 8 and 3 years. [168] He testified that on 14 May 2023, he was in Klerksdorp and did not participate in the killing of Ralikonelo Joki. He disputed PW2’s evidence that implicated him in the murder of Ralikonelo Joki. He stated that sometime after 20 May 2023, he arrived home in Mokema. At his shop, he encountered PW2, PW9, and Retselisitsoe Sesioana. After that, he went to Ha-Lebakae to check on his animals, where he found Ntsane and Rorisang. Later, he left for Retselisitsoe's place to sleep, leaving PW2 and Retselisitsoe behind. [169] In the morning, he realized that PW2 and Retselisitsoe had spent the night at the same place. He then travelled home but stopped by PW2’s house to greet the Chief, leaving PW2 and Retselisitsoe at PW2’s home. Later, he called Rapelang Chaka (PW9) to take him to Koro-Koro. He then went to the mountain with PW2, PW10, and Ntsane. While there, PW9 called him to inform him that he was waiting for him at Koma Koma. He asked PW9 to take him to Koro-Koro and then to Maseru. [170] While at Koro-Koro, he went to Mahloane’s shop, where PW2 arrived and told him that he was responsible for the murder of Mothibe Mothibe and that he had stolen his gun, which he had sold. He testified that PW2 never mentioned that the police were looking for him. Afterward, he stated that PW9 dropped him off at Ha-Thetsane, where his car was being repaired, and he drove to Berea. Since the car still had mechanical issues, he called Thabiso Nyoko to bring his other vehicle. Thabiso Nyoko arrived at Ha-Thetsane with PW3, PW9, and another individual. Later in the evening, he left with Thabiso Nyoko while the others travelled in the other car. [171] He denied PW2’s evidence that he had ordered a hit on the deceased, Mothibe Mothibe, because he wanted the deceased’s gun. He further denied PW2’s evidence that he planned the killing of the deceased, Ralikonelo Joki, because of the conflict relating to initiation school issues. He testified that on 19 April 2023, he arrived in Lesotho accompanied by Phakoe and his driver. While at Mahlabatheng, they encountered A4, who joined them. They then visited PW2’s place, where they found the Chief, PW2, and PW10 fitting tiles in the house. He stated that he returned to South Africa before 20 May 2023. After returning, he went to the mountain top where he kept his animals. From there, he went home, dropped off the items he had brought, and then left for South Africa again. [172] On 20th June 2023, he noticed on social media that the police wanted A1, A2, and A4. He testified that A2 called him, saying he was with A1 and that they wanted to go to Lesotho to surrender to the police, but they did not have money for transport. Later, he met A1 and A2 in Klerksdorp, and A4 joined them. He testified that he, A1, A2, A4, Mentla, and Molefi travelled to Lesotho. He testified that while they had crossed the border into Lesotho, the police arrested them. He explained in detail to the court how the police tortured him and his co-accused. [173] He testified that the police contacted him to ask if he was still interested in collecting the money from Gauteng. The police accompanied him to the border, but they did not stamp his passport while they stamped theirs. He stated that the police spoke with their South African counterparts at the border post, who allowed him to cross. He mentioned that he traveled with police officers Kubutu, Masenkane, Sekhoane, and Makoloane, as well as other unidentified officers. He clarified that he travelled in the same vehicle as Officers Kubutu and Masenkane. [174] He testified that before reaching Klerksdorp, he called Jack to inform him that he had been arrested and needed money. He stated that Jack told him he would call Botsonyane and instructed him to contact Botsonyane upon his arrival in Klerksdorp. He mentioned that, just before they arrived in Klerksdorp, his phone battery died, so he asked the police to take him to his house to charge it. [175] He disputed Officer Masenkane's claim that the police searched for guns at his house, asserting that they did not go to Klerksdorp for that purpose. He testified that as soon as his phone was charged sufficiently, he called Mpho Matamane (PW3) to go to Botsonyane’s place. Later, PW3 called him back to confirm that he had met Botsonyane, and, through PW3’s phone, asked Botsonyane whether he had received a message from Jack. [176] He testified that Jack later called him to inform him that he had secured M20,000.00 for him and had kept his 100 grams of gold. He then called Botsonyane to instruct him to meet at the graveyard. While he waited with the police at the graveyard, PW3’s car arrived, and PW3 called him. He stated that before he reached the car, the vehicle's boot opened, and Botsonyane told him that his items were in there. He retrieved a black bag from the car’s boot, and then the car left the scene. [177] The black bag contained money and gold ready for sale on the market. He denied the crown's evidence that the black bag contained three guns, stating that the bag he retrieved was too small to hold three guns. He explained to the police officers that the gold was valued at M170,000.00, and they were pleased to accept it. He stated that the police asked for money to release him. He denied handing over three guns to the police; instead, he gave them money and the gold. [188] During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether he had recruited PW3 to participate in the murder of Mothibe. This suggestion was based on PW3's testimony, which claimed that Mothibe had a romantic relationship with PW3's wife. The witness denied having met PW3 on 18 May 2023. Additionally, it was suggested that on that same day, the witness told PW3 he wanted Mothibe’s gun and implied that Mothibe should be killed. In response, the witness stated that he was not on the mountain on 18 May 2023. [189] During cross-examination, the witness was informed that PW2 had told him the police were looking for him. The witness responded that the Chief had not told him the police were searching for him, nor had his mother. [190] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that when the conspiracy to kill Mothibe took place, Retselisitsoe Sesioana, the witness’s cousin, was present, and PW10 was declared a hostile witness because he wanted to protect Retselisitsoe Sesioana and the witness, and the witness replied that he did not remember that. It was suggested to the witness that PW2 testified that the witness had told him that Joki was murdered because of a dispute over initiation school issues, and the witness disputed this claim. [191] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that the guns he handed over to the police were the ones used in the shooting of the deceased. The witness denied this accusation. During cross-examination, the crown counsel suggested to the witness that he had taken the police to Klerksdorp to hand over the guns. In response, the witness clarified that he had gone to Klerksdorp to hand the money to the police. After the shooting incident at Mokema, A2 reportedly left Mokema with three guns, and it was suggested to the witness that the same guns were later retrieved from the witness. However, the witness denied ever having had those guns taken. It was suggested to the witness that A4 said he and the witness went to the chief’s place, and the witness agreed with this version. Further, during cross-examination, the witness denied that he conspired with Tsepang Monatsi- PW10 to kill the deceased- Mothibe Mothibe. During cross-examination, the witness was asked about his bail petition, in which he claimed he cooperated with the police by assisting them in retrieving the guns. The witness denied this assertion. **SUBMISSIONS BY THE CROWN** [192] Adv. Lephuthing, for the crown, submitted that the crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted in common purpose in all the counts. He submitted that in count 1, A4 participated in the murder of Ralikonelo Joki, in that he joined A1 and A2 from Ha-Abia to Thamae Shopping Centre and remained in the car to ensure that PW1 did not leave the vicinity of the crime scene. He argued that A4 became aware that A1 and A2 had shot and killed Joki, and did not dissociate himself from their actions, by reporting the incident to the police. The crown stated that A4 was part of the plan to kill Ralikonele Joki because he was present at PW2’s home in the company of A1 and A2 when they made inquiries about the contacts of Ralikonele Joki. Crown submitted that A4 played a critical role in the fateful night because his presence in the car prevented PW1 from leaving the scene when he noticed that A1 and A2 had shot at the deceased. The crown submitted that before A1 and A2 exited the car, they told PW1 that they were going to kill Ralikonelo Joki. He therefore submitted that A4 associated himself with the commission of the offence, as he played the role of keeping an eye on PW1. [193] The prosecution argued that both PW2 and PW9 provided consistent testimonies, confirming that A1 and A2 ambushed Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane, shooting at them. They emphasized that these witnesses corroborated each other on key details. For instance, after shooting Mothibe, the assailants entered his car through the boot and took certain items from it. Additionally, PW2 testified that A1 robbed Mothibe of his gun and then shot him with that same weapon. The prosecution claimed that following the shooting incident at Mokema, A1 gave two guns to A2. One of the guns was the one A1 used to shoot Mothibe and Ntsane, while the other was the gun they had stolen from Mothibe. A2 then took both guns away. [194] The Crown argued that the accused acted with a common purpose. This was supported by the testimony of PW2, who recounted an incident where A3 met with him and another individual, Ntsane, at a mountaintop. During this meeting, A3 inquired whether A1 and A2 had given them anything, to which they replied that they had not received anything. PW2 testified that A3 claimed to have given them M5,000. Additionally, the Crown pointed out that PW2 testified that A3 had mentioned ordering a hit on Mothibe and that Mothibe's gun should be taken. The evidence indicates that Mothibe was subsequently shot and killed, and his gun was stolen. This gun was later recovered from A3 in Klerksdorp. Therefore, the Crown submitted that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the accused acted with a common purpose in furthering their plan to kill Joki and Mothibe. [195] The crown further argued that A3 handed over three guns to the police, which a ballistic expert linked to the murders at Ha-Thamae and Mokema. Therefore, he argued that Mothibe was indeed murdered and that his gun was taken, which was ultimately retrieved from A3. Adv. Lephuthing claimed that A3’s assertion that the black bag contained money and gold should not be believed, as it is far-fetched. He urged the court to accept the testimonies of Police Kubutu and Masenkane, who corroborated each other’s accounts that A3 handed over the three guns. Adv. Lephuthing emphasized that Mothibe’s gun was found in A3’s possession, linking him to the murder of Mothibe. [196] Adv. Lephuthing submitted that A1 and A2’s version that they stopped at the intersection leading to Tsenola is not correct, because even during cross-examination of PW1, the defence counsel suggested to PW1 that when they arrived at Thamae shopping Centre, A1 and A2 requested PW1 to stop to alight from the vehicle, and PW1 agreed with this suggestion. He argued that the claims by A1 and A2, stating they stopped at the intersection one kilometre from Thamae Shopping Center, are untruthful and should be dismissed. [197] Adv. Lephuthing further argued that the evidence of PW2 and PW9 is credible because the two witnesses corroborate each other on important points. He stated that their testimonies confirm that A1 and A2 ran to Mothibe's car and shot at it. When the car skidded off the road, both witnesses agree that A1 entered the car through the boot, followed by A2, and removed certain items from inside. They both indicated that Mothibe was robbed of his gun. Furthermore, Adv. Lephuthing noted that PW1 also confirmed that when A1 and A2 approached the car, they were armed with guns. According to PW2's testimony, when they reached the car, A1 handed two guns to A2: the gun A1 used to shoot Mothibe and Mothibe's gun. PW2 also indicated that A1 robbed Mothibe of his gun and then shot him with it. In conclusion, Adv. Lephuthing submitted that the accused acted in common purpose in committing these offenses. He referred the court to the case of **_Rex v. Ramaema and Others CRI/T/37/2000_** , on the doctrine of common purpose. He therefore urged the court to find the accused guilty as charged. **SUBMISSIONS BY THE DEFENCE** [198] Advocate Molapo, the defense counsel, argued that the prosecution failed to demonstrate the existence of the common purpose doctrine as it pertained to the accused individuals. Advocate Molapo contended that the prosecution did not prove that the accused planned or participated in the commission of the charges against them. The defence further stated that none of the prosecution witnesses ever heard the accused planning the deaths of the deceased. [199] Adv. Molapo further submitted that it is pertinent for an accomplice witness to answer frankly and not to shield himself from incrimination. The defence then submitted that the Crown witnesses have, in all material respects, failed to advance concrete evidence that, in fact, the accused persons murdered the deceased persons. Adv. Molapo further submitted that it is necessary for the evidence of an accomplice witness to be corroborated to avoid the risks associated with it. [200] Advocate Molapo further argued that even if it could be claimed that the guns were recovered in the Republic of South Africa, the fact that A3 crossed the border illegally means that the guns were retrieved unlawfully. [201] Advocate Molapo, representing the accused, argued that PW1 did not dispute the accused's assertion that they got out of the car to urinate. He pointed out that PW1 stated he had neither planned nor heard any discussions about the accused planning the death of Ralikonelo Joki. Additionally, he stated that PW2 testified that on 20 May 2023, he was not in the company of A3 and A4, and that he encountered them only after the deaths of Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane. The defence further contended that PW3 did not open the black bag to ascertain its contents, leading them to conclude that the evidence was fabricated. The defence also noted that there was no evidence showing that the guns were found in the possession of A3. [202] Adv. Molapo submitted that the crown failed to link A3 and A4 to the murder of Ralikonelo Joki, Mothibe Mothibe, and Thomello Ntsane, therefore prayed that they should be acquitted on counts 1, 2, and 3. He further submitted that the crown failed to link the accused persons with the illegal firearms allegedly found in their possession. He submitted that the evidence pertaining to the firearms was manufactured, since the trip to Klerksdorp was illegal, and that no one corroborated that A3 handed over the guns. He therefore requested that all the accused individuals be acquitted on count 5. Additionally, he requested that A3 and A4 be acquitted on count 4, as there was no direct evidence linking them to the crime scene when Mothibe's gun was stolen. It was also submitted that A3 was out of the country at the time of the incident. He therefore requested that all the accused individuals be acquitted on count 5. It was also submitted that A3 was out of the country at the time of the incident. **DOCTRINE OF COMMON PURPOSE** [203] It is a matter of common cause that the crown’s case is based on the doctrine of common purpose. In all five counts, the crown stated that the accused, sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful act together, did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of Ralikonelo Joki, Mothibe Mothibe, and Thomello Ntsane, and offences in counts 4 and 5. **THE LAW** [204] In the case of **_Ramaema v Rex_**** _**[5]**_****_,_****_Ramodibedi JA,_** stated that:**__** “ _I hasten to observe however that this doctrine has been the subject of much debate and criticism in the Republic of South Africa, see for example**S v Khoza******[6]**********andS v Sefatsa and Others**[7]****. I do not propose to enter the debate, but I should be prepared, however, to say that the classical meaning of the doctrine of the common purpose is that, where two or more persons associate together or agree in a joint unlawful criminal undertaking, each one of them will be responsible for any criminal act committed by the other or others in the furtherance of their common purpose. In such a situation the acts of one are the acts of the other(s). See **S v Shaik and Others******[8]******.** In a case where an accused has been shown to have joined a conspiracy, if he is to escape criminal liability, it must be proved as a fact that the accused in each case dissociated himself from the common design before it was executed.” _ [205] The leading case as regards the invocation of the doctrine of common purpose is**_S v Mgedezi_ _**[9]**_**. “ _In the first place he must have been present at the scene where the violence was being committed. Secondly, he must have been aware of the assault on the deceased. Thirdly, he must have intended to make common purpose with those who were actually perpetrating the assault. Fourthly, he must have manifested his sharing of a common purpose with the perpetrators of the assault by himself performing some act of association with the conduct of the others. Fifthly, he must have had the requisite mens rea, so in respect of the killing of the deceased, he must have intended them to be killed, or he must have foreseen the possibility of their being killed and performed his own act of association with recklessness as to whether or not death was to ensue”._ [206] In terms of this doctrine, liability for the commission of a crime is by attribution to individuals who partook in the crime **_(Burchell and Milton, Principles of Criminal Law**[10]**)._** For attribution of liability to be imposed, the accused’s participation in the crime should flow from either of the following scenarios: (a) by a prior agreement, express or implied between the participants to commit an offence, (b) it may arise from impulsive participation (without prior agreement) **_Magmoed v Janse Van Rensburg and Others_**** _**[11]**_**.**** In addition to participating impulsively, there must be a requisite state of mind (_mens rea_). The accused must have intent, in common with other participants in the crime charged and must have actively associated himself with the conduct of other participants to achieve a common purpose of committing a substantive crime charged _.**(S v Singo**[12]**)**_. **** [207] In **_S v Madlala_**** _**[13]**_****_,_** **Holmes JA** expressed himself in the following terms: _“It is sometimes difficult to decide when two accused are tried jointly on a charge of murder, whether the crime was committed by one or the other or both of them or by neither. Generally, and leaving aside the position of an accessory after the fact, an accused may be convicted of murder if the killing was unlawful and there is proof-_ 1. _that he individually killed the deceased, with the required dolus, e.g by shooting him, or_ 2. _that he was a party to a common purpose to murder, and one or both of them did the deed; or_ 3. _that he was a party to a common purpose to commit some other crime, and he foresaw the possibility of one or both of them causing death to someone in the execution of the plan, yet he persisted, reckless of such fatal consequence, and it occurred; see**S v Malinga and Others**[14]**; or **_ 4. _that the accused must fall within (a) or (b) or (c) – it does not matter which, for in each event he would be guilty of murder._ **ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION** **Count 1** [208] PW1 testified that on 14 May 2023, A2 called him requesting transportation to Ha-Thamae. He testified that A2 arrived in the company of A1 and A4, and he conveyed them to Ha-Thamae; however, on the way, they asked him to tune to Tsenolo FM, and he told them that the vehicle could not tune to Tsenolo FM. Then A1 said he would listen on his headphones. PW1 testified that when they approached Tsenolo FM, they told him they were going to kill Ralikonelo Joki, and he asked them why they did not tell him before about their plan. He testified that A2 replied that if they had told him, he would not have agreed to take them there. He said he stopped near Tsenolo FM yard, and A1 and A2 quickly got out of the vehicle, holding pistols, while A4 remained in the car. After alighting from the car, A1 and A2 entered Tsenolo FM premises in a hurry. They had given him instructions to wait for them at the junction leading to Lakeside. He stated that, before he could pass through the Tsenolo FM gate, he heard gunshots and saw a 4x4 van emerge from it. He abruptly applied the brakes to avoid hitting the van, but the van collided with the shopping centre wall. He testified that A1 and A2 arrived, and slapped the car on the side, signalling for PW1 to stop. They entered the car, and he asked them what they had against that person, and A2 replied, “** _oa phapha_**.”** __** A2 telephoned someone, reporting that they shot and killed him. [209] Under cross-examination of PW1, the defence put it to PW1 that when A1 and A2 got out of the vehicle at Tsenolo FM, they went to a secluded place to urinate, and the witness replied that he saw A1 and A2 entering the Tsenolo FM yard. [210] PW2 testified that one day, he was at his home when A1, A2, and A4 arrived in a Honda Fit. He testified that A1, A2, and A4 alighted from the vehicle and inquired about the contacts of anyone from St. Michael’s. He asked why they wanted the contacts, and they told him they planned to kill Ralikonelo Joki. He inquired about their motive, and they told him it was a feud over initiation school, which he could not understand, as he was not initiated. [211] PW12 testified that on a date he could not recall, A2 called him to inquire about the presenter on Tsenolo FM. He replied that he was at the bar; therefore, he was not listening to the radio. A2 then invited him to his home, and he found A2 listening to Tsenolo FM. A2 asked him to confirm whether the presenter on air was Ralikonelo Joki, and he confirmed that it was Ralikonelo Joki, as the callers were calling him by his nickname “**Leqhashasha”.** He then returned to the bar. He testified that the following day, which was a Monday, he learned that the Ts’enolo FM presenter, whose identity had not been disclosed then, had been shot. Later, he learned that the presenter was Ralikonelo Joki. After knocking off from work, he met A2 in his car. He testified that he asked A2 what he needed Ralikonelo Joki for. A2 replied that they went there after the witness had left. PW12 then said he asked A2 whether he meant they went to Ts’enolo FM, and he testified that A2 confirmed it. PW12 then testified that he asked A2 if he was responsible for Ralikonelo Joki’s death, and A2 confirmed that he was responsible for his death. After some time, he recognised the face of A2 on social media, as **“WANTED”.** He confronted A2 about this, and A2 confirmed that he was aware that he was “**WANTED”**. [212] In the admitted report of Detective/Sub/Insp Kubutu (Exhibit H), he stated that on 22 June 2023, A3 voluntarily and freely took him, together with Police officers, Masila, Maraisane, Mokoma, and Masenkane, to Klerksdorp to point out the guns that were used to kill the deceased. He stated that when they arrived at A3’s home, guns were not there, and A3 called someone, directing that person to bring the guns to the graveyard area at K’huma in Klerksdorp. Thereafter, a silver Honda Fit arrived, and A3 opened the car’s boot and retrieved a black bag, and the vehicle immediately drove off. The black bag contained three firearms: 1\. 9mm star s/n rubbed off. 2\. 7.65 mm Baretta s/n rubbed off. 3\. 7.65 mm Taurus s/n FHR 54782. He stated that on 25 June 2023, these guns were sent to the ballistic laboratory for ballistic examination, while 7.65 Taurus FHR 54782 was sent to Mofoka Police Station, as the post where the case of Mothibe Mothibe was reported. The admitted LMPS 12 marked exhibit “I” shows that the following properties were seized; 1. 9mm Star s/n rubbed off. 2. 7.65 mm Pietro Beretta s/n rubbed off. 3. 7.65 Taurus SA s/n FHR 54782. [213] PW5- Detective Inspector Kubutu testified that during the interviews of the accused, they learned that the guns used in the commission of the offence were in possession of A3. He testified that A3 admitted that the guns were in his possession but were in Gauteng. He testified that on 22 June 2023, they crossed the border into the Republic of South Africa, accompanied by A3. He stated that prior arrangements had been made at the border to cross into South Africa with A3, as they had sought permission from their South African counterpart. He testified that A3 took them to his home, but they did not find any guns. However, A3 called someone, and after this, A3 told them to go to the graveyard. They waited at the graveyard when a grey Honda Fit arrived. The driver pointed to the car's boot, and A3 went to it and retrieved a black Woolworths containing three guns. He testified that he filled LMPS 12, marked Exhibit I, and the gun- 7.65 mm s/n FHR54782 was marked Exhibit 1, 7.65 mm s/n rubbed off was marked Exhibit 2, and 9mm s/n rubbed off was marked Exhibit 3. [214] PW17- Police Seeko testified that on 15 May 2023, he attended the crime scene at Ha-Thamae in the company of Police Mphephoka. He found a white 4 x 4 that had collided with the bar's wall. A lady who worked at the bar handed him an empty 9mm cartridge. [215] PW6- Police Mokoteli, the ballistics Forensic Scientist, submitted that on 25 June 2023, Police Kubutu submitted three guns to him for examination purposes. The ballistic report tendered in and marked exhibit J shows that on 15 May 2023, Police Mphephoka submitted: i. 4 x 9mm cartridge case. ii. 5 x 7.65 cartridge case. iii. 2 x bullets. On 17 May 2023, Police Maraisane submitted. iv. 1 x bullet On 25 June 2023, Police Kubutu submitted. v. 1 x 9mm pistol s/n rubbed off. vi. 1 x 7.65 pistol s/n rubbed off. vii. 1 x 7.65 pistol s/n FHR54782. [216] In the ballistic expert report (Exhibit J), Police Mokoteli stated that the purpose of the laboratory examination was to check whether the three firearms were in good working condition, and further to check whether 4 x 9mm cartridge cases, 5 x 7.65 mm cartridge cases, 2 x bullets, and 1 x bullet were fired from the firearms. Upon examination, he found that the pistol, a 9mm x 19 mm black Norinco with a rubbed off serial number, manufactured in China, was in good working condition. The pistol, 7.65 mm x 17mm Pietro Beretta, with a rubbed-off serial number, manufactured in Italy, was in good working condition. The pistol, a silver/black 7.65 x 17mm Taurus manufactured in Brazil, with serial number FHR54782, was in good working condition. He stated that after running the tests, he found that 4 x 9mm cartridge cases and 5 x 7.6 mm cartridges and test samples generated by firearms- 1x 9mm pistol s/n rubbed off and 1 x 7.65 mm pistol s/n rubbed off, respectively, suggested that they were fired from the same firearm(s). He stated that the results provide very strong evidence that the 4 x 9mm cartridge cases and 5 x 7.65 mm cartridge cases were fired from 1x 9mm pistol s/n rubbed off, and 1 x 7.65 mm pistol s/n rubbed off, respectively. [217] The admitted post-mortem of Ralikonelo Joki (Exhibit C) shows that death was due to traumatic internal bleeding and traumatic intracerebral bleeding. External Appearance: Presented with one entry gunshot wound on the head, consistent with skin wounds, compatible with contact shooting of the projectile muzzle imprint seen. Several other gunshot wounds with exits. Perforation of the heart is seen (Internal bleeding). Massive collection of blood in the intrathoracic and intra-abdominal. It shows that there was a massive collection of blood, intrathoracic and intra-abdominal. The post-mortem shows that the deceased sustained gunshot wounds, and it corroborates PW1’s evidence that A1 and A2 shot at the deceased, as they alighted the vehicle carrying guns, and immediately when they entered T’senolo FM yard, PW1 heard gun reports, and noticed the deceased’s car losing control and colliding with the wall. [218] The accused are charged with committing the offences acting in common purpose with each other. When looking at the evidence presented by the crown, PW1 testified that A2 requested him to take him to Ha-Thamae. It is common knowledge that the occupants of PW1’s vehicle were A1, A2, A4, and one Atang Majara. PW1 stated that the three accused boarded his cab at Ha-Abia and headed to Ha-Thamae. On the way, they asked him to tune to Ts’enolo FM, but he informed them that the vehicle could not tune to that frequency. A1 then said he would listen on his headset. It is important to note at this stage that PW12, Papiso Matsoso, testified that A2 called him to inquire about the identity of the presenter on Ts’enolo FM that night. PW12 responded that he was not listening to the radio as he was at the bar. This then prompted A2 to invite him to his house, and upon arrival, asked PW12 to confirm whether the presenter was Ralikonelo Joki. He stated that he confirmed that the presenter was indeed Ralikonelo Joki, and then A2 released him. This piece of evidence shows that a plan to kill the deceased, Joki, had been made, and A2 wanted to make sure that the presenter on air that night was Joki. The defence did not furnish any reason why A2 was so curious to know about the presenter on duty that night. It is further not a coincidence that A1, A2, and A4 went to Ha-Thamae, where Tsenolo FM is located, because they had planned the killing of the deceased. It is also not coincidental that the accused asked PW1 to tune to Tsenolo FM on their way to Ha-Thamae. A2 having established that the presenter on duty at that material time was Joki, they then drove to Tsenolo FM. A2, while traveling to Tsenolo FM, was listening to the radio on his headphones to make sure that their victim was still on air. [219] PW1 testified that when they approached Tsenolo FM, they told him that they intended to shoot Joki, and he asked them why they did not tell him in advance about their intentions, and A2 replied that they knew that he would not have agreed to take them there. They told PW1 where to stop, and A1 and A2 quickly got out of the vehicle, each carrying a pistol, while A4 remained in the car. PW1 testified that he saw them rushing to the Tsenolo FM premises and had instructed him to stop for them. PW1 stated that as he approached the Tsenolo FM gate, he heard gun reports, and he saw a car driving out, which collided with the wall on the opposite side. A1 and A2 then signalled for him to stop by hitting the car on the sides, and they got in the vehicle. PW1 then asked them what they had against Joki, and A2 replied, “**oa phapha**.” A2 then phoned someone and reported that they shot and killed him. [220] It is worth noting that the defence disputes that they stopped at Tsenolo FM yard; instead, they stopped at the intersection leading to Tsenola. During _inspection in loco_ , it was agreed by both the crown and the defence that where the accused said they stopped to urinate was about a kilometre away from Tsenolo FM premises or Thamae Shopping Centre. It is important to highlight that during the cross-examination of PW1, the defence admitted that PW1 stopped near Tsenolo FM and suggested to PW1 that A1 and A2 went outside to urinate at a secluded place. PW1 vehemently denied this version and reiterated that A1 and A2 entered the Tsenolo FM yard. The defence’s version that they stopped at the intersection leading to Tsenolo, about one kilometre away from Tsenolo FM or Thamae Shopping Centre, was an afterthought on the part of the accused, because even during the cross-examination of PW1, they admitted that they stopped at Tsenolo FM premises, just to pass water. [221] On the other hand, A4 stated that he was an innocent person traveling with A1 and A2, as he did not know their intentions. This is far from the truth because, even before the shooting incident, they told PW1 that they intended to shoot Joki. A2 said they did not tell PW1 about their mission because they knew he would not have agreed to take them there if he had known. A1 and A2 got out of the vehicle, carrying guns, and instructed PW1 to stop. Even at this time, A4 did not dissociate himself from the actions of A1 and A2. He learned that A1 and A2 had gone outside to shoot at Joki. When they returned, PW1 asked them what they had against Joki, and they replied as they had; still, A4 did not dissociate himself from A1 and A2's actions. Instead, he remained in the car to ensure that PW1 did not leave the scene. It is worth noting that during the cross-examination of PW1, he stated that if A4 had not remained in the car, he could have left the scene after the shooting incident. The presence of A4 at the crime scene was significant because his role was to ensure that PW1 did not leave the scene after the shooting incident. Even after the shooting incident, he did not dissociate himself; instead, he acted in the furtherance of the offence by remaining in the car so that PW1 could not leave the crime scene. [222] It is worth noting that A4 was present at the crime scene at Tsenolo FM yard when the offence was committed. A4 was fully aware of the attack on the deceased- Joki, and he manifested his sharing of the common purpose with A1 and A2 by traveling together with A1 and A2, and by remaining in the getaway car, to ensure that PW1 did not leave the crime scene, and having known about the shooting of Joki, he did not dissociate himself from the common design by reporting this shooting incident to the Police. Considering the conversation that took place in the vehicle, especially that the plan was to shoot Joki, and having seen that A1 and A2 left the vehicle carrying guns, A4 must have foreseen the possibility of Joki being killed and performed his own act of association by keeping watch on PW1, not to leave the crime scene. A4’s version that he did not know about the plan to shoot Joki is untruthful because the three accused persons departed for Tsenolo FM, with the settled intention to shoot and kill Joki. The totality of evidence shows that A4 acted in common purpose with A1 and A2. A4 was not surprised by the request to PW1 to tune the car radio to Tsenolo FM station. A4 was not surprised, as PW1 was, to learn that the purpose of the trip there was to shoot at Joki. When A1 and A2 left the car in a hurry, he did not say he was surprised by that. When A1 and A2 returned and PW1 asked them why they shot him, he did not say he was surprised by A2’s answer. Ultimately, A2 reported on the phone that they shot and killed Joki, A4 was not shocked to hear that statement, because he was part of the plan to kill Joki. This conclusion is indicated by the fact that A4 did not report this incident. [223] There is evidence of PW2- Sekhobe Maama, an accomplice witness. Before I deal with the evidence of PW2, it is convenient at this stage to deal with the law relating to accomplice evidence. The starting point is _section 239 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_. It reads: _“Any Court may convict any person of any offence alleged against him in the charge on the single evidence of any accomplice, provided the offence has by competent evidence other than the single and unconfirmed evidence of the accomplice, been proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been actually committed.’’_ [224] In approaching PW2’s evidence, this court sought guidance from the celebrated remarks of Shreiner JA, in **_Rex v Ncanana**[15]**, _**namely: _“The cautious court or jury will often properly acquit in the absence of other evidence connecting the accused with the crime, but no rule of law or practice requires it to do so. What is required is that the trier of fact should warn himself, or , if the trier is a jury, that it should be warned of the special danger of convicting on the evidence of an accomplice; for an accomplice is not merely a witness with a possible motive to tell lies about an innocent accused but is such a witness peculiarly equipped, by reason of his inside knowledge of the crime, to convince the unwary that his lies are the truth. This special danger is not met by corroboration of the accomplice in material respects not implicating the accused, or by proof aliunde that the crime charged was committed by someone; so that satisfaction of the requirements of section 285 [our section 239] does not sufficiently protect the accused against the risk of false incrimination by an accomplice. The risk that he may be convicted wrongly although section 285 [our section 239] has been satisfied will be reduced, an in the most satisfactory way, if there is corroboration implicating the accused. But it will also be reduced if the accused shows himself to be a lying witness or if he does not give evidence to contradict or explain that of the accomplice. And it will also be reduced, even in the absence of these features, if the trier of fact understands the peculiar danger inherent in accomplice evidence and appreciates that acceptance of the accomplice and rejection of the accused is, in such circumstances, only permissible where the merits of the former as a witness and the demerits of the later are beyond question.”_ [225] The same principle was restated by Holmes JA in **_S v Hlapezula and Others**[16]**_**_._ See also **_Bereng Griffith Lerotholi and Others v The King_**** _**[17]**_****_;_**_**Manamolela and Others v Rex**[18]**; Phasumane and Others v Rex**[19]****_**.** [226] I must state at this stage that this court is fully alive to the dangers inherent in the evidence of an accomplice, and therefore properly cautioned itself accordingly. [227] It is therefore convenient at this stage to consider PW2's evidence. He stated that on a certain day, A1, A2, and A4 came to his home traveling in a Honda Fit. They alighted from the vehicle and inquired about the contacts of anyone from St. Michael. He inquired why they wanted the contacts. They told him that they were going to kill Joki, and he asked them for a reason. They told him that it was about a feud over initiation schools and added that since he was not initiated, he would not understand. He testified that after the shooting incident at Tsenolo FM, A1 told him that they killed Joki. During the cross-examination of PW2, it was suggested to him that he never planned the killing of Joki together with A1, A2, and A4, and PW2 agreed with this suggestion. The most important piece of evidence is that A1, A2, and A4 came to PW2’s house, inquiring about the contacts of anyone from St. Michael who could share Joki's contacts. PW2 pressed them as to why they needed Joki’s contacts, and they said they wanted to kill Joki. It is worth noting that during the cross-examination of PW2, the defence did not dispute that the three accused persons arrived at PW2’s home and had the conversation PW2 said they had. This evidence shows that A4 was part of the plan to kill Joki, as he was traveling in the company of A1 and A2 and did not dissociate himself from their conduct. A4 was there when they told PW2 that they intended to kill Joki. It is therefore not surprising that on the fateful night, A4 accompanied A1 and A2 to Tsénolo FM yard, where the deceased was murdered. He was not surprised to see A1 and A2 leaving the car in a hurry, carrying guns. He was not surprised when they returned and reported to PW1 that they shot the deceased. Further, A4 was not surprised when A2 phoned someone, reporting that they shot and killed the deceased. This court therefore finds that A4 was part of the plan to kill Joki, and he took part by making inquiries about Joki’s contacts when they approached PW2 about that issue. A4 further took part in the furtherance of Joki’s murder, and acted in common purpose with A1 and A2, by going to the crime scene, and remaining in the car to keep watch on PW1, so that he could not leave the crime scene. This conclusion is reinforced by PW1’s evidence that if A4 had not remained in the car, he could have fled from the crime scene when he noticed that A1 and A2 had shot at the deceased. A4’s version that he was not part of the plan to kill Joki is rejected, and the court finds that at all material times he acted in common purpose with A1 and A2. The court further rejects the accused's version that they stopped at the intersection, which is one kilometre from Tsenolo FM to urinate. The court finds that the vehicle stopped at Ts’enolo FM premises, as per the accused’s instruction, and that A1 and A2 alighted from the vehicle, each armed with a gun, and shot at Joki. After this incident, when they got into the car, PW1 asked them why they shot him, and A2 said the deceased “**Oa phapha**.” [228] Fast-forward to 14 May 2023. A4 was in the company of the very same people he had gone to the home of PW2 with, when they inquired about the contacts of someone from St. Michael’s. A4 travelled with A1 and A2 to Tsenolo FM, where the deceased, Joki, worked. Along the way in the presence of A4, A2 asked PW1 to tune the car radio to Tsenolo FM. When they approached Tsenolo FM, A2 told PW1 they had not told him about their plan because they knew he would not have agreed to go. Even at this stage, A4 knew the plan for going to Tsénolo FM, and because he was part of the plan, he did not dissociate himself, but furthered the commission of the offence, by playing a critical role of keeping an eye on PW1, to ensure that PW1 did not leave the crime scene, as his car was a getaway car. A4’s evidence that he did not know that A1 and A2 were carrying guns is untruthful because he was part of the plan to kill Joki. The evidence that A4 was present with A1 and A2, when they went to PW2’s house, shows that he was part of the plan to kill Joki, and that he acted in common purpose with the other two accused in committing the offence they are charged with. [229] The evidence of PW12- Papiso Matsoso, is to the effect that on the fateful night, A2 inquired of him about the presenter who was on air at that time. When PW12 said he was not listening to the radio, as he was at the bar, A2 invited him to his house. When he arrived at A2’s house, A2 asked him to identify the presenter who was on duty, and he confirmed that he was the deceased, Joki. After this identification, A2 released PW12. There is no doubt that A2 wanted to ensure the presenter was their target. While on the way to Tsenolo FM, A2 further wanted to listen to Tsenolo FM to ensure that their target was still on duty. The totality of the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW12 shows that the accused had hatched a plan to attack the deceased at his workplace, and each one of them had a role to play in the execution of their plan to kill Joki. [230] It is important to note that A2 and PW12 were good friends, as they drank together. In summary, A2 and PW12 had a cordial relationship as friends. This fact is demonstrated by the evidence of PW12, who stated that when A2 was away in South Africa, A2 asked him to send him some money for liquor, and A2 duly obliged. PW12 said that A2 invited him to his house; upon arrival, A2 asked him to identify the presenter on air, and thereafter released PW12. This evidence clearly shows that A2 and PW12 were good friends. This court therefore does not find that PW12 could have any reason to implicate A2 in the commission of this offence. Similarly, A2 had a cordial relationship with PW1, whom he normally contacted for transportation. This court therefore finds that PW1 was a truthful and credible witness, as he stood his ground and remained unshaken during cross-examination. The court has not found any reason why PW1 could falsely implicate the accused in the commission of this offence. In addition, this court duly cautioned itself when considering the evidence of an accomplice witness- PW2. During the cross-examination of PW2, the defence did not dispute PW2’s evidence that A1, A2, and A4 arrived at PW2’s home traveling in a blue Honda Fit. The defence further did not dispute PW2’s evidence that the three accused persons inquired about the contacts of anyone from St. Michaels. On the issue that they told PW2 that they wanted to kill Joki over an initiation school feud, the defence did not challenge this evidence; instead, the defence put it to the witness that he never planned together with the accused to kill Joki, and the witness agreed with this version. [231] During the cross-examination of PW2, it was suggested to the witness that PW2 heard from someone that the accused killed Joki. PW2 replied that A1 told him that they had killed Joki. It is apparent from the line of questioning by the defence that the accused did not deny that A1 told PW2 that they wanted to kill Joki. Whether PW2 and the accused never planned to kill Joki was not material, as the issue is whether A1, A2, and A4 acted in common purpose in the commission of this offence. The evidence of PW2 shows that the three accused persons acted in common purpose because at all material times they were together, for example they made inquiry about the contacts of Joki together, they travelled to Ha- Thamae together, each played a role at the crime scene, on the way to Tsenolo Fm, there was discussion on tuning the car radio to Tsenolo FM, after the shooting incident all the three accused departed from the crime scene together. This court therefore finds that PW2 was a credible witness. [232] PW10- Tsepo Monatli was declared a hostile witness. See **_Rex v_** **_Tseliso Nthathe_**** _**[20]**_**. This witness admitted that he had previously made a statement that was inconsistent with his evidence in the proceedings. After the court had declared this witness a hostile witness, the crown was permitted to cross-examine this witness. The crown counsel asked this witness whether he still maintained that he did not know who killed Ralikonelo Joki, and the witness replied that he still maintained that position. It was then put to the witness that in his statement to the Police, he stated that he learned on social media about the death of Ralikonelo Joki. Subsequently, he met A1, who told him that they had hit Ralikonelo Joki. The crown counsel then asked him what he understood by A1’s statement that they had hit Ralikonelo Joki. He replied that he did not understand what A1 meant. The Crown counsel then put it to him that in his statement to the Police, he stated that he asked A1 what he meant, and A1 clarified that they shot Ralikonelo Joki. This piece of evidence clearly shows that A1 admitted to PW10 that they had shot at Ralikonelo Joki. The fact that this witness was declared a hostile witness, and that the crown was therefore allowed to cross-examine him, showed plainly that PW10 wanted to protect A1 by distancing himself from the statement he had made to the Police. This court has therefore considered the evidence of this witness. [233] PW17- Police Seeko testified that on 15 May 2023, he attended the crime scene at Ha-Thamae, accompanied by Police Mphephoka. He stated that opposite Tsénolo FM, there is a bar facing the station, and there is a tarred road between Ts’enolo FM yard and Thamae Shopping Centre. He observed that a white 4x4 vehicle had hit the bar's wall on the opposite side of the road. While they were at the crime scene, a lady working at the bar handed an empty 9mm cartridge to Police Mphephoka. [234] PW6- Police Mokoteli, the ballistic expert, stated that on 15 May 2023, he received the following items from Police Mphephoka as exhibits alleged to have been involved in the commission of a crime at Ha-Thamae, as per Pitso Ground RCI 53/05/23. i. 4 x 9mm cartridge cases. ii. 5 x 7.65mm cartridge cases. iii. 2 x bullets. On 17 May 2023, Police Maraisane submitted. iv. 1 x bullet On 25 June 2023, Police Kubutu submitted. v. 9mm pistol serial number rubbed off. vi. 7.65 mm pistol serial number rubbed off. vii. 7.65 mm pistol serial number FHR 54782. [235] It is worth noting that PW1 testified that A1 and A2 alighted from the vehicle carrying guns, and they hurriedly entered Ts’enolo FM yard, and he heard gun reports. A1 and A2 returned to the car, and A2 reported to someone that they shot and killed Joki. This court has no doubt that A1 and A2 fired their guns as soon as they entered Tsenolo FM yard, because it was at that time that PW1 witnessed a vehicle losing control and hitting the wall of the bar. It is a matter of common cause that Joki was shot while at the driver’s seat, driving out of Tsenolo FM yard. PW17- Police Seeko corroborated PW1’s evidence that, upon arrival at the crime scene, they found a 4x4 vehicle that had collided with the bar's wall. He testified that a bar lady handed over a 9mm cartridge to Police Mphephoka. This confirms PW1’s evidence that shots were fired at the crime scene. PW6 stated that he received four 9mm cartridge cases, five 7.65 mm cartridge cases, and two bullets from Police Mphephoka. He further stated that on 25 June 2023, he received a 9mm pistol, s/n rubbed off, and a 7.65mm pistol, s/n rubbed off, from Police Kubutu. He stated that upon examination of 9mm cartridges, 7.65mm cartridges, and two pistols, namely 9mm pistol and 7.65mm pistol, he concluded that four 9mm cartridge cases were fired from the 9mm pistol, s/n rubbed off, and that five 7,65mm cartridge cases were fired from the 7.65 mm pistol, s/n rubbed off. I will revert to the issue of these two guns whose serial numbers were rubbed off, after dealing with count 2. It suffices to state at this stage that the shells that were recovered from the crime scene at Ha-Thamae were fired from the guns handed by Police Kubutu to PW6, for ballistic examination. At a later stage, the Court will address how these firearms are connected to A1 and A2. It is further worth mentioning that the defence did not challenge PW6’s findings. **Count 2 and Count 3** [236] PW1 testified that on 20 May 2023, A2 requested him to transport him to Mokema. When they arrived at Mokema, A1 joined them. He testified that they drove through the village and that, as it was dark, he noticed car lights some distance away, though it was not late because it was winter. A1 and A2 alighted from the car at a location he did not know, as he was not familiar with that place. They told him they would find him there, and PW1 remained with an unidentified person. Later, this identified man received a call, and after this call, he told PW1 to move to a different location, where they would find A1 and A2. Ultimately, A1 and A2 arrived. PW1 testified that when A1 and A2 arrived, they were holding guns and a cell phone. He testified that they told him that the gun and the cell phone belonged to the person they had shot together with his concubine. He testified that A1 said that as they were shooting at the victim, the car nearly hit him. PW1 testified that he told them the phone would link them to the commission of this offence, and they discarded it. PW1 testified that when they reached the intersection, where there is a gravel road, he stopped, and A1 and an unidentified individual alighted from the car. PW1 testified that he asked A2 why they shot that person, and A2 replied that he made life difficult for his boy. [237] PW2 testified that on 18 May 2023, he met A1, who inquired from him when he last saw Mothibe Mothibe. He further testified that A1 requested him to look for Mothibe Mothibe for A1, and asked PW2 whether he had Mothibe Mothibe’s contacts. PW2 testified that he asked A1 why he was so desperate to meet Mothibe Mothibe, and he said A1 replied that he needed Mothibe’s contacts urgently because Mothibe had to be murdered. He stated that in the evening, A1 called him and requested him to call Mothibe to find out about his whereabouts. He testified that he called Mothibe and inquired about his whereabouts, and Mothibe said he was still at his home. PW2 testified that he asked A1 why they wanted Mothibe murdered, and A1 replied that Mothibe was problematic. [238] PW2 testified that on 20 May 2023, while traveling to Mahlabatheng, he received a call from A1 and A2 inquiring about his whereabouts. While at Mokema, he received yet another call from A1 and A2 inquiring about his whereabouts. They told him he would find them at the graveyard near Sekila’s home, and indeed, they met there. He testified that upon their arrival, A1 and A2 told him they had traced their target, and he asked them where the target was; they said it was somewhere in the village. [239] PW2 testified that he left with A1, while A2 and PW9 remained behind at the corner pocket bar, to keep an eye on Mothibe, who was present there. PW2 returned to the Corner pocket bar, and while they were walking there, they noticed Mothibe’s car leaving. PW2 then took a footpath, accompanied by A1, A2, and PW9. After passing one Konstabole’s house, they saw Mothibe’s car turning below one Kefumane’s home. He testified that they hid in the trees and aloes, and as the car passed by, A1 and A2 shot at the car, as each one of them was armed with a gun. PW2 testified that A1 and A2 ran on the side of the vehicle as they were shooting at it. The vehicle lost control near Konstabole’s home and veered off the road. PW2 testified that even after the vehicle had drifted, A1 and A2 continued shooting at it. When the shooting had stopped, PW2 and PW9 approached the scene. PW2 testified that he witnessed A2 opening the car boot, entering through the boot, followed by A1. They searched the car and removed some alcohol, a phone, a wallet, and a gun. PW2 testified that after A1 had taken Mothibe’s gun, he shot at Mothibe using Mothibe’s gun. A1 and A2 passed these items to PW2 and PW9, who were outside the car, and they left the scene. When they reached the area with aloes, A1 and A2 discarded the bank cards, and PW2 was unsure whether the ID was discarded as well. When they reached the car, A2 entered it, and PW10 alighted. PW2 testified that A1 handed over two guns to A2, and A2 took them away. PW2 clarified that one of the guns A1 handed over to A2 belonged to the deceased Mothibe, while the other one was the one A1 had used in shooting Mothibe. PW2, PW9, and PW10 remained behind. [240] PW2 testified that on a date he could not recall, he was with A3 at the mountain top, where A3 kept his animals. He testified that A3 told him that he had ordered a hit on Mothibe Mothibe, and that his gun should be taken. [241] PW9 testified that on 20th May 2023, he was in the company of A1 and PW10. As he drove to Ha-Rantsetse, PW2 called him to request a pickup at Mahlabatheng. When they reached Ha-Rantsetse, they encountered a silver Honda Fit, parked by the side of the road, and he parked next to it as per A1’s instructions. A1 and PW10 alighted and entered the silver Honda Fit, while PW9 drove to Mahlabatheng to collect PW2. When he reached Lebenkeleng, he parked the car, and he and PW2 headed to Mokema. When they reached the graveyard, PW2 remained behind, as PW9 continued with the journey. When PW9 reached the passage leading to the corner pocket, he encountered PW2 and A2, and shortly thereafter, A1 joined them. PW9 testified that A1 asked him if Mothibe was present in the bar, and he answered that he was present. Shortly thereafter, Mothibe’s car drove off, leading to Mahlomola’s stop, and it turned onto a gravel road. The vehicle then drove towards them, and they hid in the aloes as the lights shone on them. PW9 testified that as the vehicle passed, A1 and A2 followed it and started shooting at it until it lost control. PW9 testified that A2 opened the car boot, entered the car, followed by A1. A1 and A2 handed the alcohol to PW2. They all left the scene. When they were near the home of one Mosithee, the vehicle arrived. He testified that A2 got into the vehicle, which then drove off, while PW2, A1, and PW9 remained behind. [242] It is common cause that PW1 transported A2 to Mokema, where A2 met with PW2, A1and PW9. It is a matter of common cause that PW1 parked the car where A1 and A2 had instructed him through PW10, who was unidentified by PW1; however, PW2 and PW9 confirmed that PW1 was accompanied by PW10 when they arrived at the vehicle. [243] PW2 and PW9 corroborate each other that they met at the passage together with A1 and A2, and they confirmed that Mothibe Mothibe was at the bar. Whilst there, they noticed Mothibe’s car driving off, then turning towards one Konstabole’s house. As it approached, they hid among the aloes, and as the car passed by, A1 and A2 emerged from their hiding place and opened fire on the vehicle. On the other hand, A1 and A2 stated that they waited for PW2 and PW9 at the corner pocket bar, as they had agreed to buy a gun from PW2. Both A1 and A2 stated that eventually PW2 and PW9 arrived at the corner pocket, and four of them went to a secluded place, where PW2 took out the gun, and A2 paid for it. From there, they went to the car's parking location, and A2 got into the vehicle while PW10 alighted. It is worth mentioning that both PW2 and PW9 corroborated each other that, after the shooting incident, four of them went to the place where the car was parked; upon their arrival, A2 got into the vehicle, and PW10 alighted from it. The crown evidence was to the effect that A1 handed two guns to A2: one belonging to A1 and the other having been stolen from Mothibe Mothibe. PW1 corroborated PW2 and PW9 that when A1 and A2 reached the vehicle, they were carrying guns. PW1 testified that A1 and A2 told him that the gun and phone they had belonged to the person they had shot together with his concubine. PW1 said he told them that the phone would link them to the murder, and they discarded the phone. PW1 testified that A1 told him that as they were shooting the deceased, the car nearly hit him. It should be noted that both PW2 and PW9 corroborated each other that when the car was being shot at, it lost control and veered off the road. This evidence corroborates PW1’s evidence that A1 told him that the car nearly hit him. It is common cause that there were two occupants in the vehicle, namely Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane. Thomello Ntsane was a female person. PW1 said A1 and A2 told him that Mothibe was with his concubine when they shot him. The fact that Mothibe was shot while in the company of Thomello Ntsane, who was a female person, corroborates PW1’s evidence that they said Mothibe was with his concubine. The court is not concerned with the truthfulness or otherwise of this allegation. The most important thing is that the deceased were a man and a woman, who might have had a romantic relationship. PW1 further corroborates the evidence of both PW2 and PW9 that, when A2 got into the vehicle, an unidentified man alighted from it. The court is now aware that the man who alighted from the vehicle was PW10. [244] The version of A1 and A2 is that they agreed to meet with PW2 and PW9 at the corner pocket to complete a transaction of buying a gun from PW2. Be that as it may, during the cross-examination of these two witnesses, the defence did not put this version to these witnesses, especially that they met at a secluded place, where A2 handed the gun, and that A2 paid for it. These witnesses were denied the opportunity to respond to the accused’s version, and, in turn, the court was denied the opportunity to hear the crown witnesses' reactions. This court is of the view that Adv. Molapo, with his immense experience, would not have missed the opportunity to put this version to crown witnesses. The court holds a strong view that the accused's version that they met to conclude the sale of the gun is far from the truth; therefore, it was an afterthought. It is common cause that these two crown witnesses met with A1 and A2 along the passage leading to the corner pocket, and while there, Mothibe left the corner pocket, whereupon he was ambushed by A1 and A2. [245] This court holds that the evidence of both PW2 and PW9 corroborates each other in material respects. For example, their evidence is consistent that when Mothibe’s car approached them, they hid in the aloes as the lights illuminated them. As soon as the car passed, A1 and A2 emerged from their hiding place and opened fire on it. Their evidence is further consistent in that they said the vehicle lost control and veered off the road. They corroborate each other that, once the car had stopped, A2 opened the boot and entered the car through it, followed by A1. They said A1 and A2 handed them alcohol, and that they stole Mothibe’s items, such as bank cards, ID, phone, and the gun. PW1 corroborates the evidence of PW2 and PW9 that when the two accused reached the car, they were carrying guns and a phone. PW1 said A1 and A2 told him that they had stolen the gun and the phone from the person they had shot at. PW1 said he told them that the phone would link them to the murder, and they decided to discard it. [246] The totality of the crown’s evidence shows that A1 and A2’s version that they met with PW2 and PW9 for a business transaction is untruthful. The court finds that the three crown witnesses, namely, PW1, PW2, and PW9, were credible and unshaken during cross-examination, as they stood their ground. It is further worth noting that their evidence was consistent and corroborated each other on material respects. The evidence of PW10 is to the effect that he travelled in a car with A1 and A2, and that the driver was unidentified. He testified that when they reached the corner pocket bar, A1 and A2 alighted from the vehicle, and that he and the driver drove away. This evidence corroborates that of PW1, who stated that after A1 and A2 had exited the vehicle, he remained with an unidentified person. PW1 said they left that area, and this unidentified person directed him where to go. PW10 testified that later A1 and A2 arrived, and A2 got into the vehicle, and he travelled away with the driver. PW1 corroborates this evidence because he stated that the unidentified person got out of the car, while A2 entered the car, and they drove off. In the same way, both PW2 and PW9 corroborate this evidence that when they reached the car in the company of A1 and A2, PW10 got out of the vehicle, while A2 entered the car, and they drove away. [247] It is worth noting that PW2 testified that around 18 May 2023, after knocking off from work, he met A1, who asked him when he last saw Mothibe. He stated that A1 asked him to locate Mothibe for him, and the witness asked him why he wanted Mothibe so desperately. PW2 testified that A1 told him that he needed Mothibe because Mothibe had to be murdered. He testified that later that evening, A1 asked him to call Mothibe to inquire about Mothibe's whereabouts. He testified that he asked A1 why Mothibe had to be murdered, and A1 replied that Mothibe was problematic. [248] It is further important to consider the evidence of PW3- Mpho Matamane. He testified that one day he was at A3’s shop, and he approached A3, who was seated in the company of A1and A2. He said A2 asked him whether he had seen Mothibe at Mahlabatheng. He testified that A2 told him to inform him if he happened to see Mothibe, because he wanted to kill him. He stated that A2 uttered that statement in the presence of A1 and A3. PW3 testified that on another day, he called A2 after seeing Mothibe pass at Mahlabatheng, heading to Mokema. He stated that A2 said he did not have ammunition, so it was impossible to shoot him. The evidence of PW3 clearly shows that at all material times, there was a plan to kill Mothibe Mothibe, as here the court is told how A2 wanted this witness to trace Mothibe for him, so that he could be murdered. [249] Fast forward to the evidence addressing A3. PW2 stated on a date he could not remember, he met with A3 on the mountain top. He said that while there, A3 told him that he had ordered a hit on Mothibe Mothibe, and that Mothibe’s gun should be stolen. It is important to note that when A2 told PW3 to trace Mothibe for him, A2 was in the company of A1 and A3. This piece of evidence shows that A1 and A3 were aware of the plan to kill Mothibe. This evidence should also be considered in the context that PW2 said A3 told him that he had ordered a hit on Mothibe and that Mothibe’s gun should be taken from him. [250] There is overwhelming Crown’s evidence that after the shooting of Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane, Mothibe’s gun was stolen. Two crown witnesses who witnessed the shooting corroborated each other that A1 stole Mothibe’s gun and shot him with it. PW1 also confirmed that when A1 and A2 reached the car, they were carrying guns. There is evidence by the crown witnesses that A1 handed two guns to A2, who took them away. [251] PW13- Police Makoloane testified that on 20th May 2023, at approximately 08:00 pm, he attended a crime scene at Mokema, in the company of Police officers, Makhooane, Masenkane, and Rakhoboso. He found a Mazda Tribute car that had capsized and was supported by a yolk (Joko). He noticed two people in the vehicle; the driver was seated in the driver’s seat, while the other person was seated behind the driver. He observed pieces of glass and blood on the deceased. They took the bodies out of the car. Upon examination of Mothibe Mothibe, he observed multiple gunshot wounds on the face and head. While Thomello Ntsane sustained multiple wounds on the face and head. He found six 9mm cartridges and seven 7.65 mm cartridges. He observed three bullet holes on the windscreen. He found a copy of a firearm licence in the cabin hole of the vehicle, indicating the name Mothibe Mothibe. [252] In the admitted exhibit K, Police Mokoteli states that on 29 May 2023, Police officer Masenkane submitted the exhibits, which were alleged to have been involved in the commission of the crime as per Mofoka RCI 09/05/23. He stated that he received the following items i. 7x 7.65 mm cartridge cases. ii. 8x 9mm cartridge cases. iii. 5 x bullets. He stated the purpose of the laboratory examination was to establish the caliber of the firearms that had fired the seven 7.65 mm cartridges, eight 9mm cartridges, and five bullets. He concluded that seven 7.65 mm cartridge cases and eight 9mm cartridge cases were fired from the 7.65 mm pistol, s/n rubbed off, and the 9mm pistol, s/n rubbed off, respectively. He concluded that the seven 7.65 mm cartridges and eight 9 mm cartridge cases, 1 x 9mm pistol s/n rubbed off, and 7.65 mm pistol s/n rubbed off were related. It is significant to state that the defence did not challenge these findings. [253] At this stage, the court is addressing the issue relating to how the three firearms were retrieved. Be that as it may, it is important to highlight that both PW2 and PW9 testified that both A1 and A2 were armed with guns, which they fired at Mothibe’s car. PW2 and PW9 corroborate each other that A1 was carrying a gun and that A2 was carrying a gun too. There is evidence from the crown witnesses that A2 entered the car through the boot, followed by A1. There is further evidence that A1 stole Mothibe’s gun and shot at him with it. PW2 and PW9 corroborate each other that when they left the scene, both A1 and A2 were still carrying the guns they used in the shooting, and that A1 was carrying two guns, including Mothibe’s gun. PW1 corroborates the evidence of both PW2 and PW9 that when A1 and A2 reached the vehicle, they were carrying guns and a phone. PW2 stated that A1 handed the two guns to A2, and A2 took them away. This means that A2 left Mokema in the possession of three guns: the gun he fired at Mothibe’s car, the gun A1 fired at Mothibe’s car, plus the gun they stole from Mothibe. PW13- Police officer Mokoloane stated that in the cabin hole of the vehicle, he found the firearm licence certificate bearing the name of Mothibe Mothibe. [254] PW16- Moitheri Mashalane stated on one occasion he transported A2 to the Maseru border gate. Along the way, A2 produced a gun and showed it to one Moholi, who was seated at the front passenger seat. They showed the gun to each other as they admired it. PW16 testified that he took the gun and placed it under his seat because he felt unsafe. He testified that when they reached the border gate area, A2 took the gun to the South African side, though he did not know to whom A2 intended to hand it. Approximately 30 minutes later, A2 returned, and they left for Mokema. This piece of evidence shows that at one point in time, A2 took the gun to someone at the border gate. It is also important to note that there is evidence that A2 took Mothibe’s gun with him when he left Mokema on 20 May 2023. The last person seen in possession of Mothibe’s gun, and two other guns, was A2, because there is evidence that A1 handed over two guns to A2 before A2 left Mokema for Maseru. It should be noted that it is common cause that A3 resides in Klerksdorp and visits Lesotho. [255] PW11- Police officer Masenkane testified that on an unnamed day that she left for Klerksdorp, accompanied by Police officers Masile, Kubutu, Maraisane, Mokone, and A3, as A3 was going to hand over guns. She stated that at approximately 04:00 pm, they arrived at A3’s home, and they found Zanele, whom A3 claimed was his wife. She testified that the accused took them to a house, in which there were refuse bags, whereupon the accused picked a plastic bag, opened it, and said there were no guns. She testified that A3 called one Mpho and instructed him to meet at the graveyard. From there, they drove to the graveyard area. While there, a grey Honda Fit car emerged, with two occupants. The witness testified that she identified one of the occupants as Mpho Matamane from Mokema, and she did not recognise the other occupant. She testified that A3 approached the vehicle, and one of the occupants pointed to the boot. A3 opened the boot, retrieved a black bag, and the vehicle immediately drove off. She testified that A3 opened the bag and said, **“Here they are”** , and she peeped into the bag and saw three guns. She testified that she filled submission form and submitted them together with the cartridges found at the crime scene, for ballistic examination. [256] PW5- Police Kubutu testified that he went to Klerksdorp accompanied by Police officers, Masila, Maraisane, Mokoma, Masenkane, and A3. He testified that his superiors had already made arrangements with their South African counterparts to cross into South Africa with the accused. When they reached the border gate, he explained to the Colonel commanding the South African Police Service there, who permitted them to cross into South Africa. It is important to note that during the cross-examination of police officers Kubutu and Masenkane, the defense suggested that A3 had been kidnapped because A3's passport was not processed at the border for entry into South Africa. However, when A3 testified in his defense, he stated that when they reached the border, the police officers escorting him spoke with their South African counterparts, who allowed them to cross with him. A3's testimony corroborates the accounts of both Officers Masenkane and Kubutu, indicating that prior arrangements were made for A3's entry into South Africa. It is further worth noting that A3 did not say that he was ever kidnapped. The defence’s claim that A3 was kidnapped is accordingly rejected. [257] Police Kubutu testified that when they arrived at A3’s home, they did not find the guns, whereupon A3 made a call to someone. After this call, A3 directed them to go to the graveyard. While they waited at that location, a grey Honda Fit car arrived. He stated that the driver pointed to the back, and A3 went to the car's boot and opened it. A3 retrieved a black Woolworths bag, and the driver drove off immediately. He stated that A3 opened the bag, and he peeped inside, seeing three guns. He testified that he submitted the three guns for ballistic examination. The evidence of both Police officers Masenkane and Kubutu, corroborates the evidence of PW6- Police Mokoteli, that Police Masenkane submitted seven 7.65 mm cartridge cases, eight 9 mm cartridge cases, and five bullets, while Police Kubutu submitted 9 mm pistol s/n rubbed off, 7.65 pistol s/n rubbed off, and 7.65 mm pistol s/n FHR54782. [258] PW3- Mpho Matamane testified that A3 phoned him and instructed him to pick one Botsonyane from Steilfontein. He stated that he took Botsonyane to a house, where Botsonyane came back carrying a black bag. The following day, A3 sent him a message reporting that he was coming with the Police. He testified that A3 instructed him to collect Botsonyane and bring the guns to the graveyard at Klerksdorp. He testified that he picked Botsonyane at his place and proceeded to the graveyard at Klerksdorp, where he saw A3 accompanied by the Police. He testified that Botsonyane handed the black bag to A3, and they immediately left the scene. [259] It is worth noting that Police Masenkane and Kubutu corroborate each other, that they went to A3’s house, but they did not find the guns. They corroborate each other further that A3 called someone, and after that call, he told the Police to go to the graveyard and wait for the guns there. Similarly, PW3 testified that A3 called him and instructed him to pick Botsonyane, who was having the guns, and take him to the graveyard. PW3, PW5, and PW11 corroborate each other that the grey Honda Fit arrived at the graveyard, and A3 retrieved a black bag from the car. PW3 confirmed that one Botsanyane, to whom A3 had sent, entered the house and came back carrying a black bag. PW3 confirmed that when he took Botsonyane to the graveyard, he was carrying a black bag. Both PW5 and PW11 corroborate each other that when they arrived at A3’s house, and the guns were not there, A3 called someone. In the same token, PW3 confirmed that he received a call from A3, who issued instructions to him. [260] It is worth noting that A3’s version is that he took the Police to Klerksdorp to give them some money and gold and refuted the Police's claims that he handed them three guns contained in a black bag. Be that as it may, A3, in his testimony, agreed that he called PW3, instructing PW3 to collect Botsonyane, who was having money and gold contained in the black bag. A3 testified that he instructed PW3 to take Botsonyane to the graveyard. Indeed, he testified that PW3 arrived accompanied by Botsonyane. The only difference between A3’s version and that of PW5 and PW11 is that A3 said the black bag contained money and gold, and not the three guns as claimed by PW5 and PW11. [261] Be that as it may, during the cross-examination of PW11 by the defence counsel, the following critical question was put to PW11: **Defence Counsel** : **“A _3 says the guns that were taken for ballistic examination are not the guns he had handed over to you, because his guns were in a black bag.”_** From the reading of this question, it is apparent that A3 acknowledged and agreed that he handed over the guns to the Police, which were in a black bag. PW3's evidence is that Botsonyane collected a black bag from a certain house, and the same black bag was taken to A3 at the graveyard, where A3 retrieved it from the car boot. Both PW5 and PW11 corroborate each other that A3 retrieved a black bag from the car boot and that it contained three guns. There is overwhelming evidence that A3 received a black bag from Botsonyane containing the three guns. The question posed to PW11 suggested that the guns the Police submitted for ballistic examination were not the ones A3 handed over to the Police. It is surprising that A3 would make such an allegation when he did not provide a description of the guns he handed over to the Police, which would have enabled them to conclude that they were not the same guns. A3's testimony is also materially contradictory, as he stated that he handed over money and gold to the Police. Be that as it may, he somersaulted to say the guns he gave to the Police were not the ones submitted to ballistic examination. It can be safely concluded that A3 admitted that he handed the guns to the Police. [262] The court holds a strong view that A3’s version that he gave the Police money and gold, and not the three guns, is beyond any doubt untruthful and incredible. It is beyond the imagination of this court that the Police would waste government resources to travel to Klerksdorp for items totally irrelevant to the crime they were investigating. The court recalls vividly that A3 sought to paint a picture of the Police investigating this case as corrupt, and that they would stop at nothing to extort a bribe from him. This court therefore rejects A3’s version that he handed money and gold to the Police. Instead, the court holds that the black bag that A3 retrieved from the car contained three guns exhibited before the court. Another important point is that during A3's cross-examination, it was brought to his attention that in his bail petition, he claimed to have fully cooperated with the police during the investigation. It was suggested to him that his act of handing over the guns to the police demonstrated this full cooperation. The court strongly believes that A3's statements in his bail petition about cooperating with the police are consistent with his action of surrendering the three guns to them. [263] Earlier in the judgment, the court stated that it would return to the issue of the guns used in the commission of the crime in **count 1**. It is worth noting that the two guns that A1 and A2 used in the shooting of Ralikonelo Joki are the same guns that were retrieved from A3 in Klerksdorp. These are the guns that PW6, the ballistic expert, concluded fired both 9mm and 7.65mm cartridge cases, respectively, which were found at the Thamae crime scene. [264] It is critical to highlight that PW2 testified that A3 told him that he had ordered a hit on Mothibe and that Mothibe’s gun should be taken from him. This piece of evidence suggests that A3 not only wanted Mothibe murdered, but he also wanted to have Mothibe’s gun. There is overwhelming evidence that A1 and A2 stole Mothibe’s gun. There is further overwhelming evidence that A1 handed Mothibe’s gun to A2, who took it away. There is evidence that A2 took a gun to the border post to an unidentified individual. Ultimately, Mothibe’gun and two other guns that had been used in the commission of a crime were found in the possession of A3. It is important to note A3’s intention to have Mothibe murdered materialised. Similarly, A3’s intention to have Mothibe’s gun stolen was well executed, as Mothibe’s gun was found in his possession. It cannot be said that A3 was not aware that the gun found in his possession belonged to Mothibe. This conclusion is based on the fact that A3 had expressed his intention and desire that Mothibe’s gun should be stolen. This court has no doubt that when A2 took the gun to the border post, it was either that he handed the gun to A3 personally or to a third party who dispatched it to A3. The actions of A1, A2, and A3 clearly show that they acted in common purpose with the intention of causing the death of Mothibe Mothibe, and further sharing a common intention, A1, A2, and A3, intentionally and unlawfully used violence against Mothibe Mothibe to steal his gun. [265] This court finds guidance in the doctrine of common purpose: where two or more people associate together or agree to a joint unlawful criminal undertaking, each of them will be responsible for any criminal act committed by the others in furtherance of their common purpose. In such a situation, the acts of one are the acts of others. This court has considered that when PW3 found A3 in the company of A1 and A2, A2 asked PW3 whether he had not seen Mothibe Mothibe. A2 then told PW3 that he wanted to kill Mothibe. It is important to note that this communication took place in the presence of A1 and A3. This evidence should also be considered within the context that PW2 stated that A3 told him that he had ordered a hit on Mothibe Mothibe and that his gun should be stolen. The fact that after Mothibe’s death, his gun was found in the possession of A3 goes to show the common association between A1, A2, and A3 to undertake an unlawful criminal act; therefore, A3 was responsible for the criminal acts committed by A1 and A2, in the furtherance of their common purpose. Before convicting under the common purpose doctrine on the strength of a prior agreement, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such a prior agreement was proved, and that the accused was a party to it. [266] This court found guidance in the case of **_Zingeleza Mzwempi, Case No.284/04, at page 17, [47],_** where the court referred to the case of **_State v Sefatsa and others 1998 (1) S.A 868 A.D at 898 A-B_** Botha JA said: _“In my opinion, these remarks constitute once again a clear recognition of the principle that in cases of common purpose the act of one participant in causing the death of the deceased is imputed as a matter of law, to the other participants.”_ [267] The admitted post-mortem report of Mothibe Mothibe (Exhibit B) shows that death was due to traumatic intracerebral bleeding and traumatic internal bleeding. External Appearance: presented with two entry gunshot wounds on the left side of the head, with exits, two bullet leads recovered below the skin. Two entry gunshot wounds right side of the chest and abdomen, with no exits, massive internal bleeding. [268] The post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained two gunshot wounds to the head, which resulted in bleeding around the brain. It is worth noting that the head is the delicate part of the body, as it contains the brain. The actions of the accused clearly indicate their intention to murder the deceased, as the deceased sustained two gunshot wounds to the head. Further, the deceased sustained two gunshot wounds to the right chest and abdomen, which resulted in massive internal bleeding. This targeted area also indicated that the accused had the necessary intention to murder the deceased, by also targeting the delicate part of the body, which contains the heart and the lungs. It is apparent that the chances that the deceased would have survived this attack were slim. The post-mortem report further shows that the deceased sustained two gunshot wounds to the abdomen. It is important to note that the deceased sustained a total of six gunshot wounds. It is further worth noting that these injuries were all gunshot wounds. This court must pause here to state that guns are dangerous, lethal weapons. Even from the choice of weapons used by the accused in attacking the deceased, it signified their settled intention to commit murder. The number of gunshot wounds the deceased sustained further indicated the accused’s intention to murder the deceased. [269] Coming to the murder of Thomello Ntsane, the evidence of PW1 is to the effect that when A1 and A2 reached PW1’s car, A1 told him that they shot Mothibe Mothibe together with his concubine. This piece of evidence clearly shows that A1 and A2 were fully aware of their actions, in that they knew Mothibe Mothibe was with Thomello Ntsane when they attacked him. PW2 provided evidence that A1 stated they had no issues with Thomello Ntsane; therefore, she was not the target. [270] When dealing with _dolus eventualis_ , the Court of Appeal in the case of **_Keketsi and Others v Rex_**** _**[21]**_**, **Majara CJ** (_ex officio)_ , _Cleaver AJA_ , and _Musonda AJA_ , remarked that _dolus eventualis_ has been dealt with and applied in many past decisions such as in the case of **_S v_**** _Humphreys_**** _**[22]**_** in which the Court [ at para 12] had this to say- “ _12…In arriving at the conclusion that he did, the court accepted rightly in my view, that the appellant had no desire to bring about the death of his passengers. Consequently, it found that the appellant did not have dolus directus or direct intention. What the court did find was that he had intent in the form of dolus eventualis or legal intent. In accordance with trite principles, the test for dolus eventualis form is twofold._ ” 1. Did the appellant subjectively foresee the possibility of the death of his passengers ensuing from his conduct; and 2. Did he reconcile himself with that possibility (see **_S v De Oliveira_**** _**[23]**_****_)_**. Sometimes, element (b) is described as “recklessness” as to whether or not the subjectively foreseen possibility ensues (see **_S v Seqwahla_**** _**[24]**_**). [271] In the case of **_DPP Gauteng v Pistorius_**** _**[25]**_****__** the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, per **Leach JA** , instructively stated as follows in relevant parts of paragraph 26- “ _26…In the case of murder, a person acts with dolus directus if he or she committed the offence with the object and purpose of killing the deceased. Dolus eventualis, on the other hand, although a relatively straightforward concept, is somewhat different. In contrast to dolus directus, in a case of murder where the object and purpose of the perpetrator is specifically to cause death, a person’s intention in the form of dolus eventualis arises, if the perpetrator foresees the risk of death occurring, but nevertheless continues to act appreciating that death might well occur, therefore “gambling” as it were with the life of the person against whom the act is directed. It therefore consists of two parts: (1) foresight of the possibility of death occurring, and (2) reconciliation with that foreseen possibility. This second element has been expressed in various ways. For example, it has been said that the person must act “reckless as to the consequences” (a phrase that has caused some confusion as some have interpreted it to mean with gross negligence or must have been “reconciled” with the foreseeable outcome. Terminology aside, it is necessary to stress that the wrongdoer does not have to see death as a probable consequence of his or her actions. It is sufficient that the possibility of death is foreseen, which, coupled with a disregard of the consequence, is sufficient to constitute the necessary criminal intent.”_ [272] The question that this court must ask itself is, firstly, whether the accused subjectively saw the possibility of the death of Thomello Ntsane from their conduct, and secondly, whether they reconciled themselves with that possibility, normally referred to as recklessness. If the accused foresaw the risk of death occurring, but nevertheless continued to act, appreciating that death might well occur, then the accused is guilty of murder with dolus _eventualis_. [273] The court is satisfied that the possibility of the death of any of the occupants of Mothibe’s car was foreseen, but nevertheless, the accused continued to act appreciating that death might well occur, which was sufficient to constitute the necessary criminal intent. [274] The post-mortem report of Thomello Ntsane shows that death was due to traumatic internal bleeding and traumatic intracerebral bleeding. External Appearance: Presented with two entry gunshot wounds to the right side of the head with one exit, one entry gunshot wound next to the left shoulder, and two entry gunshot wounds to the left buttocks with exits. Skull and its Contents: intracerebral bleeding. One entry gunshot wound next to the left shoulder, perforating through the lung, heart, and intestines. Internal bleeding. The post-mortem shows that the deceased sustained six gunshot wounds. It shows that death was due to internal bleeding and the bleeding around the brain, as she sustained a wound to the head. The post-mortem report further shows that there was internal bleeding in the chest and abdominal cavities. There is evidence presented by the crown that A3 ordered a hit on Mothibe Mothibe and that his gun should be stolen. The court has already found that A3 handed Mothibe’ s gun to the Police. It should be recalled that A3 stated that Mothibe should not only be killed, but his gun should be stolen. Therefore, in the execution of this plan, Thomello Ntsane was also shot and killed. This court fully agrees with what was stated in the **_Zingeleza case_** (supra) at **_page 19, para [50],_** where the court stated that the best known and quoted definition comes from **_Jonathan Burchell, Principles of Criminal Law 3 rd Edition, 2008, at 574_** which reads as follows: _“Where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for the specific conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design.”_ [275] On the basis of these authorities, the court finds that A1, A2, and A3 agreed to commit a crime or actively associated in a joint unlawful enterprise to kill Mothibe Mothibe and steal his gun. In the process of killing Mothibe Mothibe, Thomello Ntsane was also killed. A3 is therefore responsible for the specific conduct committed by both A1 and A2, which falls within their common design. **CONCLUSION** [276] The court concludes that the crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, sharing a common purpose, intended to commit the charged crimes. **ORDER** The court makes the following order. 1. Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2, and Accused No. 4 are found guilty in Count 1(**murder of Ralikonelo Joki**), and Accused No. 3 is acquitted in Count 1. 2. Accused No. 1, Accused No.2, and Accused No. 3 are found guilty in Count 2 (**murder of Mothibe Mothibe**), and Accused No. 4 is acquitted in Count 2. 3. Accused No.1, Accused No. 2, and Accused No.3 are found guilty in Count 3 (**murder of Thomello Ntsane**), and Accused No. 4 is acquitted in Count 3. 4. Accused No. 1, Accused No.2, and Accused No. 3 are found guilty in Count 4 (**theft of Mothibe’s property**), and Accused No. 4 is acquitted in Count 4. 5. Accused No.1 and Accused No. 2 are found guilty in Count 5, and Accused No. 3 and Accused No.4 are acquitted in Count 5.” 6. **_Section 236 (2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_** provides that _if a person referred to in sub-section (1) fully answers to the satisfaction of the court all such lawful questions as may be put to him, he shall, subject to sub-section (3), be discharged from all liability to prosecution for the offence concerned and the court shall cause the discharge to be entered on the record of the proceedings_. Pursuant to this section, the court holds that **Sekhobe Maama (PW2)** , an accomplice, fully answered to the satisfaction of the court all such lawful questions that were put to him and is therefore accordingly discharged from all liability for the offence concerned. My Assessors Agree. **SENTENCING** **Extenuating Circumstances** [277] _Section 296 (1) of theCriminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_ provides that: _Where the High Court convicts a person of murder, it shall state whether in its opinion there are extenuating circumstances, and if it is of the opinion that there are such circumstances, it may specify them_. _Section 296 (2)_ provides that _in deciding whether there are any extenuating circumstances, the High Court shall take into consideration the standards of behaviour of an ordinary person of class of the community to which the accused belongs._ [278] In the case of **_Lefaso v Rex_**[26], **Schutz P.** explained extenuating circumstances as follows: “ _Extenuating circumstances are such as reduce the moral, if not the legal guilt of the accused. The onus of proving them on a balance of probability rests on the accused._ ” [279] In **_Letuka v Rex_**[27], **Steyn P** stated that extenuating circumstances are any facts associated with the commission of the crime, whose effect in the minds of reasonable persons is to reduce the moral blameworthiness of the accused, as distinct from the accused’s legal culpability[28]. [280] The Court of Appeal in the **_Letuka case_** (_supra_) stated that there is ample authority for the proposition that the subjective state of mind of the accused is certainly one factor which can be considered in determining whether extenuating circumstances are present. Moreover, it is one that stretches to each and every factor which may throw light on what went on in the accused’s mind. See **_S v Mafela_**[29] and **_S v Petrus_**[30]. [281] The Court of Appeal in the **_Letuka case_** (_supra_) remarked further that each factor may individually have little weight taken cumulatively; however, they may well tip the scale in an accused’s favour when evaluated against the aggravating features. Factors which can be considered include the following: youth, liquor, emotional conflict, the nature of the motive, provocation, sub-normal intelligence, general background, impulsiveness, a lesser part on the commission of the murder, absence of _dolus directus_ (**_S v Ngobeni_**[31], **_Mohlalisi and Others_**[32]), belief in witchcraft, absence of premeditation or planning, heavy confrontation between an accused and the deceased before murder, rage of an accused (See **_S v Prins_**[33]). [282] In the **_Letuka case_** (_supra_) **Steyn P**. stated that: “ _It is trite that mere presence of one of these features do not axiomatically mean that they are extenuating in relation to the commission of the crime in casu. Each factor must be weighed and assessed in the light of the evidence as a whole and its relevance to the conduct and the state of mind of the accused, as well as cumulatively with any other factor associated with the commission of the offence**[34]**.” _ [283] After careful consideration of the principles enunciated in the cases referred to above, I conclude that the following extenuating circumstances exist in favour of the accused to wit; (i) Before the commission of the offences, both at Ha-Thamae and Mokema, the accused had been drinking intoxicating beverages. (ii) The accused have a rural background as they come from a rural village of Mokema, Koro-koro, and accused No.4 comes from a rural village of Jorodane. (iii) The accused persons still practice Basotho customs and traditions as they are initiated. [284] The court has now reached the most challenging trial stage and must pass an appropriate and just sentence that serves the interests of justice. In passing a sentence, this court should consider four main factors: the nature of the offense, the interests of the accused, the victims’ family, and the interests of society. [285] Adv. Molapo, the defence counsel, submitted on mitigation of sentence that the accused are first-time offenders with no previous convictions. He further submitted that they are breadwinners for their respective families. He urged the court to consider that they fully cooperated with the Police, as soon as they heard they were wanted, they travelled to Lesotho with the intention of surrendering to the Police. [286] On the aggravation of the sentence, Adv. Lephuthing for the Crown submitted that there were no extenuating circumstances; therefore, they pleaded with the court to impose the death penalty on the accused. He referred the court to the case of **_Lefaso v Rex_**** _**[35]**_**_._ [287] Adv. Lephuthing submitthed that Ralikonelo Joki was an accomplished radio presenter. Mothibe Mothibe worked at the National Assembly as the Committee’s coordinator, while Thomello Ntsane served as the United Nations' Programme Associate. [288] Adv. Lephuthing submitted that if the court does not impose capital punishment, it should then impose life imprisonment on the accused. He referred the court to **_R v Lehlohonolo Scott**[36]**_**_._ [289] I agree with the sentiments that were stated in an article: **_Crime and Punishment in South Africa_**** _**[37]**_**_,****_ where **Nicholus** stated as follows: “A _criminal sentence cannot, in the nature of things, be a matter of precise calculation…There are no scales by which these matters can be measured and there is no relationship which makes it possible to express them in terms of punishment. You must understand that sentencing is an integral part of the punishment system. Its purpose is not so much to please the community as it is to serve the interests of society. The courts exist through the will of the people and are therefore merely instruments by which or through which society exerts punishment on offenders. So, when this court imposes a sentence on you, know that it is the will of the people that is brought to bear on you. Gone are the days when, in exerting punishment on the offender, the victim, or his or the people on his behalf, took the law into their hands.”_ [290] I align myself with the remarks made in **_The State v Obakeng Gracious Skhosana**[38]**. _**It is commonly accepted that there are many purposes of sentencing. There is, firstly, the desire to punish a person who is a wrongdoer who has offended against society and who has caused harm to others. Secondly, the intention is to prevent the wrongdoer from committing such an offence again. This is the individual deterrence consideration that the wrongdoer, he or she will be deterred from engaging in actions which lead to or are themselves criminal. In the case of certain offences, particularly those thought to be more frequently committed in society and more destructive to society, there is the purpose of sending a message to other persons that they should not engage in this kind of activity or wrongdoing. Fourthly, there is the hope that whatever sentence is imposed can possibly lead to rehabilitation. [291] I observed the accused's demeanour during the trial and formed the opinion that they did not show remorse for their actions. [292] I want to repeat what I said in the case of **_Rex v Qamo Matela**[39]**_** , on page 70, para [183] that: _“In recent years, there has been a troubling increase in incidents of reckless murder, a phenomenon that points to a profound devaluation of human life. Many individuals no longer perceive life as a sacred gift bestowed by a higher power, leading to a disturbing trend where lives are taken carelessly and without remorse. This growing disregard for the sanctity of life has prompted me to take judicial notice of a significant decline in public confidence in our courts and the broader criminal justice system. The pervasive sentiment is that individuals who commit acts of murder often evade immediate legal scrutiny, allowing them to remain at large and, disturbingly, to perpetrate further crimes without any apparent fear of consequence. As courts, we are constitutionally mandated to uphold and protect human life and reaffirm our commitment to this duty.”_ [293] In delivering the sentence, this court has considered the tragic loss of three innocent lives. This loss has not only impacted the families of those who have died but has also affected the wider community, including friends and colleagues of the deceased. Additionally, the court considered that within six days, the accused committed three heinous, callous, and brutal murders of three innocent people. There is no doubt in the mind of the court that the accused were on a killing spree. This court is disturbed by the fact that Ralikonelo Joki was murdered because it was said **_“ oa phapha.”_** Similarly, Mothibe Mothibe was brutally murdered, but the court was never informed of the true reason for his murder.**__** This court must state that no reason will ever justify taking someone's life. [294] In passing an appropriate sentence, the court has considered that all three deceased individuals sustained about six gunshot wounds on the delicate parts of the body, such as the head, the chest, and the abdomen. The nature and the extent of these injuries clearly show that the accused persons wanted to make sure that their target would not survive. [295] In determining an appropriate sentence, the court has considered that the murders of Ralikonelo Joki and Mothibe Mothibe, as well as the robbery involving Mothibe, were premeditated and carefully planned. The court considered the evidence indicating that the accused actively sought information about both Ralikonelo Joki and Mothibe Mothibe. Furthermore, in planning the attack on Mothibe Mothibe, the accused requested that the crown witnesses help them track down Mothibe so they could carry out the attack. This evidence shows that these murders had been planned for some time. [296] The court has further considered the evidence presented, which showed that after Mothibe Mothibe was shot, his gun was stolen. During this incident, A1 shot at Mothibe Mothibe using Mothibe’s own gun. At that point, there was no need to shoot at Mothibe, as their objective had already been achieved. However, A1 acted brutally and callously by choosing to shoot at Mothibe regardless. In delivering the sentence, the court noted that after Mothibe Mothibe and Thomello Ntsane were attacked and shot, the accused proceeded to rob them of other belongings, including a phone, alcohol, and bank cards, which they later discarded. Their actions clearly reveal a disregard for human life, and they showed no remorse for what they did. [297] The court has considered that at the time of the offense in count 1, Ralikonelo Joki's wife was pregnant with their child. The court has been informed that the child was subsequently born. The court cannot comprehend the pain and sorrow that Ralikonelo Joki's wife endured during that time. Thankfully, she carried the baby to term through the grace of God. It is a tragic situation that Ralikonelo Joki’s child will never have the chance to know his father and experience his love. Furthermore, Ralikonelo Joki’s wife is now a widow, having brutally lost her husband. The court strongly believes that the wife of the deceased will endure significant emotional trauma due to her child being born after her husband's death. The court cannot fully grasp the pain that Ralikonelo Joki's wife will experience when she is inevitably required to explain to their child what happened to his or her father. Each time the child asks about his or her father, this widow will relive the profound pain and grief she felt when her husband was brutally taken from her. [298] The court has been informed that Mothibe Mothibe was married. Mothibe’s wife is now a widow, and the court acknowledges the pain and sorrow brought by the brutal killing of her husband. His family has permanently lost a father and husband, and the court understands the immense pain and sorrow that they are experiencing. Similarly, the family of Thomello Ntsane has lost their beloved daughter, and the court deeply recognizes the grief they are enduring due to her absence. The purpose of the court's remarks is to highlight the void left by the deceased in their families. The family members of these deceased individuals will never again see them or hear the voices of their loved ones. [299] This court acknowledges that no sentence can bring back the deceased. However, it is essential for the court to deliver a strong message that those who commit brutal and heinous crimes will face the full force of the law. Our beautiful Kingdom in the Sky is plagued by senseless and violent killings daily. The court is aware that people do not feel safe due to the constant fear of being attacked. It is well understood that society looks to the courts for protection. [300] This court firmly believes that to reassure the public of its commitment to valuing and protecting human life, it must demonstrate through its sentences that senseless killings of this nature will be met with severe consequences. Only by imposing harsh sentences can the court send a clear message to potential offenders that murder will be addressed with the utmost seriousness. [301] The court considered the accused’s decision to travel to Lesotho upon realizing they were wanted as an indication of a willingness to take responsibility for their actions. It was argued on behalf of the accused that they are breadwinners in their respective families, and the court considered this factor in sentencing them. Similarly, the court has recognized that the deceased were gainfully employed, thus providing financial support to their families. Because of these brutal killings, their families have been permanently deprived of this financial assistance. [302] I wish to digress here to address the thorny issue of the destruction of exhibits presented in court. This court has taken judicial notice that exhibits, especially firearms, are usually presented in court. At the end of the trial, the court makes disposal orders regarding the exhibits. Typically, the courts will order that the Police destroy such exhibits. It is disheartening that instead of destroying the exhibits, the Police sell and or rent out these exhibits to the criminals, who then continue to commit serious violent offences ranging from armed robberies, attempted murders, and murders. [303] The police have acknowledged that the Lesotho Mounted Police Service is facing a significant challenge in managing exhibits. They have informed the court that these exhibits are typically destroyed on 9th July each year. The court believes it is imperative to ensure that the two firearms presented as evidence are indeed destroyed. To this end, the court will observe the destruction of these items to ensure they do not fall into the hands of criminals. This action will also prevent these firearms from being used to commit further crimes. [304] The court is committed to ensuring that exhibits are handled in compliance with legal requirements. Additionally, the court believes that witnessing the destruction of the presented exhibits can help disrupt the supply chain of illegal firearms that corrupt police officers may facilitate. [304] The court concludes that the most appropriate sentence to serve the interests of justice in this case is as follows. **Order** 1. Accused NO.1 (**Mothusi Tlelase**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Court 1 (**Murder of Ralikonelo Joki**) 2. Accused No. 2 (**Sootho Liphoto**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 1 (**Murder of Ralikonelo Joki**) 3. Accused No. 4 (**Kamo Phakoe**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 1 (**Murder of Ralikonelo Joki**). 4. Accused No. 1 (**Mothusi Tlelase**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 2 (**Murder of Mothibe Mothibe**) 5. Accused No. 2 (**Sootho Liphoto**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 2 (**Murder of Mothibe Mothibe**) 6. Accused No. 3 (**Moabi Sesioana**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 2 (**Murder of Mothibe Mothibe**) 7. Accused No.1 (**Mothusi Tlelase**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 3 (**Murder of Thomello Ntsane**). 8. Accused No. 2 (**Sootho Liphoto**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 3 (**Murder of Thomello Ntsane**). 9. Accused No.3 (**Moabi Sesioana**) is sentenced to life imprisonment in Count 3 (**Murder of Thomello Ntsane**). 10. Accused No. 1(**Mothusi Tlelase**) is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in Count 4 (**Robbery**) 11. Accused No. 2 (**Sootho Liphoto**) is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in Count 4 (**Robbery)**. 12. Accused No. 3 (**Moabi Sesioana**) is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in Count 4 (**Robbery**). 13. Accused No. 1 (**Mothusi Tlelase**) is sentenced to one year's imprisonment in Count 5 (**Unlawful possession of a firearm).** 14. Accused No. 2 (**Sootho Liphoto**) is sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in Count 5 (**Unlawful possession of a firearm**). 15. All sentences are to run concurrently. My Assessors Agree. **Disposal Order** 1. In terms of **_section 56 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981,_** the two exhibits, to wit; 9mm x 19mm black Norinco pistol serial number rubbed off and 7.65mm x 17mm Pietro Beretta serial number rubbed off, are forfeited to the Crown, and shall be destroyed by the Police on or before the **09 July 2026**. 2. The Commissioner of Police is directed to inform and invite the Court to observe and witness the destruction of the two exhibits mentioned in (1) above. 3. The Commissioner of Police is directed to release the exhibit, to wit: **_a silver/black 7.65mm x 17mm Taurus Pistol serial number FHR54782,_** to **‘Malineo Mothibe,** as soon as the application process is complete, in terms of **_section 56 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_**. **______________________** **T.J. MOKOKO** **JUDGE** **FOR THE CROWN** : **ADV. C.J LEPHUTHING** **FOR THE ACCUSED : ADV. L. MOLAPO** * * * [1] CRI/T/0043/2023 [2] CRI/T/0009/2020 [3] 1974-1975 LLR 201 [4] Ramakatsane 1978 (1) LLR 70 at page 73-_74_ [5] LAC (2000-2004) 710 at p. 729, para [84] [6] 1982 (3) SA 1019 (A) [7] 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) [8] 1983 (4) 57 (A) at 64-65 _**[9]**____1989 (1) SA 687 at 705-706 B_ [10] 2nd Ed. 393 [11] _1993 (1) SA 777 (A) SACR 67 (G)_ [12] _1993 (2) SA 765 (A) at 772 D-E_ [13] _1969 (2) 637 (A) at 640 F-641_ [14] 1963 (1) SA 692 (A. D) at p. 694 F-H and p. 695 [15] 1948 (4) SA (A) at 405 – 406 [16] 1965 (4) SA 439 (A) [17] 1926-53 HCTLR 149 (PC); 1959 AC 11 (PC) [18] LAC (1980-84) 202 [19] LAC (1985-89) 168 [20] C of A (CRI) NO. 5 /2022[2024] LSCA (1 November 2024) [21] LAC 2015-2016 412 at page 419 [22] 2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA); 2015 (1) SA 419-420 (SCA) [23] 1993 (2) SACR 59 (A) at 65 i-j) [24] 1967 (4) SA 566 (A) at 570 [25] [2016] 1 ALLSA 346 (SCA) [26] LAC 1990- 1994 44 [27] LAC 1995- 1999 405 [28] LAC 1995-1999 at P 405 [29] 1980 (3) SA 825 (A) [30] 1969 (4) SA 85 (A) [31] 1992 (1) SACR 628 (C) [32] LAC (1980 – 1984) 110 at 117 [33] 1990 (1) SACR 426 (A) [34] LAC 1995 – 1999 at P 423 [35] C of A (CRI) 7/1989 [1990] LSCA (26 January 1990) [36] CRI/T/123/12 [[2020] LSHC 6](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2020/6) (23 March 2020) [37] 1975 Page 150 [38] Case Number: 20/2017 at para [4] page 2 [39] CRI/T/0018/2021 [[2024] LSHC 227](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/227) CRIM (29th November 2024) #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >

Judgment

R V Tlelase & 3 Others (CRI/T/0007/2024) [2025] LSHC 254 (3 December 2025)

Judgment

Similar Cases

Discussion

R V Tlelase & 3 Others (CRI/T/0007/2024) [2025] LSHC 254 (3 December 2025)

Judgment

Similar Cases

Discussion