Battle lines drawn in Moatlhodi ‘assault’ case
FRANCISTOWN: Trial dates have been set for the case in which former deputy speaker of the National Assembly, Pono Moatlhodi and his co-accused, Nnyana Kebitsang, alleged assaulted a minor.
The State alleges that the 71-years-old outspoken UDC legislator, for Tonota and married couple, Maranyane Kebitsang, 68, and Nnyana Kebitsang, 61, acting together in concert, subjected Kesego Olekantse, now 12, to inhuman treatment on January 30, 2019 by assaulting him in Tonota.
The trio is alleged to have thereafter unleashed a vicious dog to bite Olekantse causing him puncture wounds and bruises on his face and body contrary to the Children’s Act.
Olekantse allegedly bore the brunt of the trio after he allegedly stole some mangoes from the Kebitsang homestead. Maranyane has since died.
When PPP, as Moatlhodi is popularly known in political circles and Nnyana appeared in Court before Magistrate Game Mooketsi for status update, it became apparent that the accused were leaving nothing to chance after they beefed up their legal team with another renowned Francistown based legal hawk, Tshekiso Tshekiso.
Tshekiso told the Court that from now on, he will be working on the case with the accused’s other attorney, Martin Maeba, whom he said was equally esteemed at the High Court.
The matter will come for status update on April 1, 2021 while tentative trial dates have been set for May 24 and 25, next year.
At one point, the prosecution and defence were mulling to reconcile about the matter, an issue that sparked anger in social media platforms.
This proposal however, took a different twist when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Tiroyakgosi dug in his heels saying that the case should go for trial.
Maeba and Gaone Miller from the DPP had consented that Moatlhodi and Nnyana should compensate the complainant with P40, 000 in order for charges against them to be stayed.
However, things took a different twist later when the accused appeared in court.
Miller, who appeared together with a social worker, shocked the accused and their attorney when she told the court that there was now change of circumstances in the matter.
Miller told the court that she had received communication from the DPP director to the effect that the State was now abandoning the issue of reconciliation and instead, the matter should now proceed for trial.
Miller’s words shocked the accused and their attorney who even expressed displeasure at the new turn of events.
Maeba told the court that the new development was prejudicial to his clients since the prosecution and defence had already consented to the issue of reconciliation.