Zim judge presiding in controversial Lesotho murder trials, starts work

31 January 2019 · Carmel Rickard

A number of controversial murder trials are about to get under way in Lesotho, presided over by foreign judges to ensure the cases are seen to be fairly conducted and without bias to either side. The murders allegedly involve high-ranking figures from the country's politicians, army and police as victims and/or assassins. The first cases were due to start last week under Jifa alum Judge Charles Hungwe of Zimbabwe, but they were delayed due to the absence of the defence lawyers for the accused. Other foreign judges are due to arrive in Lesotho soon, to share the load of the trials with Judge Hungwe.

A string of controversial murder trials is about to get under way in Lesotho, under several foreign judges chosen to ensure that the cases are seen as unbiased.

Judge Charles Hungwe from Zimbabwe was the first of the judges to arrive in Lesotho late January. He has responsibility for drawing up the roll of cases for each of the foreign judges to hear. The cases are particularly sensitive because they involve senior military and political figures, either as victims or as assassins – or both.

Some of the cases date back a number of years but because of the alleged complicity of high-ranking members of government and/or members of the military and police, the trials have been delayed by repeated changes in government.

The cases in Lesotho, which are being heard in the high court, Maseru, got off to a slow start. In the first trial, where eight soldiers are to be charged with the murder of an army general in 2015, the defence team did not arrive in court. According to reports in the local media, Judge Hungwe said that the accused would have to be allowed to choose other legal representatives if their lawyers continued their “no show” in court.

Prosecuting counsel described the absence of the legal team representing the accused as an insult to the court, adding that the lawyers concerned had been aware of the dates set for the hearing.

Their absence was “a great disrespect to the court, their clients, the administration of justice and the rule of law,” he said. The case was extremely significant to the people of Lesotho and to the international community “who want to see justice and the rule of law being applied.”

The missing lawyers also failed to turn up for a case in which they were due to represent a number of accused charged with multiple murders.

Both cases were postponed.

Appointed to the bench in 2000 by Zimbabwe’s former president, Robert Mugabe, Judge Hungwe has acted in Lesotho previously. He has a record of delivering independent decisions in Zimbabwe. For example, he allowed that country’s anti-corruption commission a warrant to search the offices of three cabinet ministers belonging to the ruling Zanu-PF party.

He also made headlines in his home country after he ordered that prominent human rights lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa, had to be released from prison – a sensational decision at the time.

On the other hand, some disappointment has been expressed in relation to certain decisions he made in the run-up to last year’s general elections in Zimbabwe. These were judgments responding to cases brought by applicants who were trying to ensure greater democracy and more transparency at the polls. One of these, for example, related to an application by a visually impaired voter for ballot papers, printed in braille, to be available during the elections. Judge Hungwe, however, rejected the application on the grounds that the election commission had the matter in hand and had promised that “measures” would be taken to facilitate voting by visually-impaired voters.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.