…as Court of Appeal sends Manyokole corruption case back to High Court
Moorosi Tsiane
FORMER Local Government Principal Secretary, Lefu Manyokole, and his co-accused are now staring?the prospect of harsher sentences and hefty fines, if convicted, ?after the Court of Appeal ruled that their multi-million maloti fraud case must proceed before the High Court.
In another victory for the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO), the apex court on Friday overturned a previous High Court ruling that had transferred the M39 million fraud matter to the Magistrates’ Court — a move the accused had fiercely opposed in a bid to avoid the tougher consequences associated with High Court proceedings.
The decision effectively places Mr Manyokole and the other accused back before the High Court, where they face allegations of embezzling nearly M40 million in public funds earmarked for disaster relief during the 2021–2022 floods, which were declared a national?disaster?by former Prime Minister Moeketsi Majoro.
Mr Manyokole had previously argued that prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court would attract a lesser sentence, and therefore sought to have the matter?tried in that lower court.
He had mounted a legal challenge against the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) decision to indict him in the High Court.
Through his lawyer?and brother, Advocate (Adv) Mahlomola Manyokole, he argued that the transfer was unlawful, irrational and unconstitutional, insisting the prosecution had failed to justify why the matter should be heard before the superior court.
“The decision to indict my client in the High Court is legally flawed because the DPP failed to provide reasons for the transfer,” Adv Manyokole submitted.
He further accused the prosecution of abusing its powers under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (CP&E), arguing that there was no evidence of public interest concerns or risks of witness interference that warranted elevating the matter to the High Court.
The defence also argued that the accused would suffer prejudice due to significantly higher legal costs associated with High Court proceedings.
Adv Manyokole further revealed that his client had already lost the services of senior counsel, Advocate Salemane Phafane KC, due to inability to meet the cost of High Court representation.
However, DCEO counsel, Adv Jay Naidoo SC, dismissed the arguments, maintaining that the law grants the DPP wide discretionary powers to determine the forum for prosecution.
“Section 144(1)(b) clothes the DPP’s office with discretion as to where an accused should be tried. The law does not require consultation with the accused nor compel the DPP to provide reasons,” argued Adv Naidoo.
He further submitted that the accused had failed to demonstrate any real prejudice arising from the matter being prosecuted in the High Court.
According to the DCEO, the case had not yet reached trial stage in the Magistrates’ Court, with only remand proceedings having taken place before the decision to transfer the matter was made.
“Prior to the accused pleading in the Magistrates’ Court, the DPP had already taken the decision to move the matter to the High Court. No preparatory examination had been conducted,” Adv Naidoo argued.
He added that Mr Manyokole and the other accused had already participated in the High Court’s Pre-Trial Preparation Stage (PTPS), meaning the High Court had effectively assumed jurisdiction over the matter.
“When Mr Manyokole was unable to retain Phafane KC, the High Court, through the Registrar, facilitated the appointment of pro deo counsel. Therefore, there was no prejudice suffered,” he said.
Last year, Justice ‘Maliepollo Makhetha ruled in favour of Mr Manyokole and ordered that the matter be returned to the Magistrates’ Court.
In her judgment, Justice Makhetha said the prosecution had failed to place before the court sufficient jurisdictional facts justifying the transfer of the case to the High Court.
“The Crown has not placed before this court the jurisdictional facts affecting public interest upon which the decision to indict the accused was based,” she ruled at the time.
She further noted that subordinate courts were fully capable of handling corruption and fraud matters of this nature.
But dissatisfied with the ruling, the DCEO escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, arguing that Justice Makhetha had misdirected herself and ignored established legal precedent, including the Ramoepane judgment.
Arguing before a Court of Appeal bench comprising Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane, Justice Petrus Damaseb and Justice Phillip Musonda, Adv Naidoo said the lower court had adopted an overly narrow interpretation of the law.
He maintained that the DPP’s constitutional mandate gave the office full authority to determine the appropriate forum for prosecution.
Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal on Friday, Justice Kananelo Mosito ruled in favour of the DCEO and ordered that the criminal trial proceed before the High Court.
“The appeal stands to be allowed and the trial must continue in the High Court,” ruled Prof Mosito.
Mr Manyokole is jointly charged alongside former Local Government Principal Secretary Nonkululeko Zaly, former Cabinet Principal Secretary Thabo Motoko and several other accused over the alleged embezzlement of M39,959,159.30 during the flood disaster period.
The late Disaster Management Authority (DMA) chief executive Makhotso Mahosi — who was killed alongside her son during a 2023 attempted robbery — was also among those initially charged in the matter.
Businesspeople and several companies allegedly linked to the scheme are also cited as accused.
All the accused remain out on M20,000 bail pending the commencement of the High Court trial.
