Moorosi Tsiane
POLICE Constable (PC) Kelebone Mapane, who was dismissed in January 2024 over allegations of soliciting a M6000 bribe, has challenged his dismissal at the High Court.
PC Mapane was fired by Commissioner of Police Borotho Matsoso along with his colleagues, PCs Poloko Sephamola and Letlotlo Tsuelle. All three were stationed at Mpharane Police Post in Mohale’s Hoek.
They were charged with contravening the Police Act No.7 of 1998.
“…Whereas on or about 25/05/22 at or near Ha Kaphe village in the district of Mohale’s Hoek, the accused persons solicited and accepted bribery, thereby committing an offence… They solicited and accepted an amount of M6000 through Mpesa services as a bribe from one Retšelisitsoe Khasooane and one Tumelo Kelepa, who were alleged to have been in possession of an unlawful firearm, which was also confiscated by the accused persons,” reads the charge.
Commissioner Matsoso, the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing, the Chairperson of the Police Appeals Tribunal, and Attorney General Advocate Rapeang Motsieloa KC are cited as the first to fourth respondents, respectively.
According to PC Mapane, he was not properly charged and was denied a fair hearing, as the proceedings went ahead without his legal representative.
PC Mpane said he had merely responded to a call during which he seized the illegal firearm and handed it over to his superiors.
He said he was then taken aback when he was called to a meeting to explain his actions, only to be told that the meeting was a “disciplinary hearing”. He claims he objected to proceeding without his lawyer but was only given 30 minutes to secure legal representation.
“I objected to the procedure, as I had not been given prior notice that the hearing would proceed that day. I had not informed my lawyer. The chairperson of the disciplinary hearing insisted that I had only 30 minutes to find legal representation, which I found unreasonable. I believed I was entitled to legal representation of my choice and reasonable time to secure it. The limited time given was equivalent to a denial of legal representation.”
PC Mapane further argued that the prosecutor’s evidence did not align with that of the witnesses.
“During the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor claimed that the firearm was not recorded in the occurrence book. However, one of the prosecutor’s witnesses, PC Lisene, testified otherwise, stating that the firearm was indeed recorded as a surrender with an entry marked OB/143 May 22.
“No evidence was presented from Retšelisitsoe Khasooane, the person I was accused of receiving a bribe from. Additionally, there was no evidence linking me to the alleged payment. Instead, Mathabeng Khasooane testified that his brother, Retšelisitsoe, called him about his arrest. Mathabeng stated that he deposited M6000 into Mpesa accounts for his brother’s release, but no proof was provided showing that I received the money.”
On 31 August 2023, PC Mapane was found guilty, and the disciplinary chairperson recommended a penalty of 21 days forfeiture of pay.
However, in January 2024, he was issued a show cause letter giving him seven days to justify why the sentence should not be varied to dismissal. Despite submitting his response, he received a dismissal letter on 22 January 2024—within the seven-day period allocated for his representation.
PC Mapane lodged an appeal with the Police Appeals Tribunal in accordance with Section 51(4) of the Police Service Act 1998. He was recalled to duty pending the appeal’s determination. However, on 29 July 2024, the tribunal upheld Commissioner Matsoso’s decision, confirming his dismissal.
PC Mapane contends that Commissioner Matsoso’s decision to dismiss him was unlawful, wrongful, irregular, and illegal. He seeks the court’s intervention to review and overturn it.
“I must indicate that the Commissioner had already made a pre-conceived decision to dismiss me without considering my written representation, as my dismissal letter was issued before my response period had even lapsed. This is a clear irregularity that should not be condoned by this Honourable Court.
“I have observed that when an LMPS member receives a representation letter, dismissal automatically follows. My dismissal was predetermined without due consideration of my response. The Commissioner alleged that I did not respond, which is untrue,” states PC Mapane.
“While Matsoso has the right to accept, vary, or reject the recommended sentence, his decision to dismiss me was made contrary to the principles of natural justice. He invited me to make a representation while he had already decided on my dismissal without considering my submission.
“I pray this Honourable Court to review, correct, and set aside the Commissioner’s decision to dismiss me from the Lesotho Mounted Police Service, as it was unlawful and made contrary to the law,” he submits.
Post Views: 308
