R v Bolofo (CRI/T 1 of 97) [1997] LSHC 29 (12 March 1997)

CRI/T/1/97 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter between R EX v M A T S O SO J O HN B O L O FO L E L I N G O A NA D A V ID J O N A T H AN L E P O QO S E O E H LA M O L A PO M A K A RA S E K A U TU 1st Accused 2nd Accused 3rd Accused 4th Accused R E A S O NS F OR S E N T E N CE Delivered by the H o n o u r a b le M r. Justice M . M. R a m o d i b e di On the 12th d ay of M a r c h, 1 9 97 On the 6th M a r c h, 1 9 97 a c c u s ed N o .1 M a t s o so J o hn B o l o f o, a c c u s ed N o .2 L e l i n g o a na D a v id J o n a t h an a nd a c c u s ed N o .4 M a k a ra S e k a u tu w e re e a ch f o u nd guilty of the c o m m on l aw crime of sedition on their o wn plea to the first alternative to the indictment they faced. In o r d er to fully appreciate the b a c k g r o u nd to the c h a r ge a nd the resultant p l ea as aforesaid it is n e c e s s a ry to r e p r o d u ce the w h o le indictment w h i ch w as certainly a f o r m i d a b le o ne e m b o d i ed in the f o l l o w i ng t e r m s: " C o u nt 1 - H i gh T r e a s on T h at the said a c c u s ed are guilty of H i gh T r e a s on in that: W H E R E AS during the w h o le period c o v e r ed by this indictment all the said a c c u s ed o w ed allegiance to the K i n g d om of L e s o t ho (hereinafter referred to as the State) u p on or a b o ut the dates a nd at or the p l a c es hereinafter set out, the said a c c u s e d, e a ch or the other or all of t h e m, despite s u ch allegiance, did unlawfully a nd w i th hostile intent a nd w i th the intention of c o e r c i ng by force or o v e r t h r o w i ng the g o v e r n m e nt of the State c o m m it o ne or m o re or all of the f o l l o w i ng hostile acts:- A. On or a b o ut the 9th d ay of J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 6, at O ld E u r o p a, in the M a s e ru R e s e r v e, district of M a s e r u, the s e c o n d, third a nd fourth a c c u s ed did unlawfully c o m b i ne a nd c o n s p i re w i th o ne a n o t h er a nd w i th other p e r s o ns to m a ke preparations for the o v e r t h r ow of the g o v e r n m e nt of the State a nd did at the m e e t i ng they held on or a b o ut the 9th J a n u a r y, 1 9 96 aforesaid d e c i de that t h ey w e re g o i ng to a n n o u n ce the o v e r t h r ow of the g o v e r n m e nt o v er R a d io L e s o t ho on the 10th J a n u a r y, 1 9 96 a nd thereafter take control of the g o v e r n m e n t. B. P u r s u a nt to a nd in furtherance of s u ch c o n s p i r a cy - (i) A c c u s ed N o .2 a nd a c c u s ed N o .4 w e re assigned to m e et an a r my officer k n o wn to t h em w ho w o u ld facilitate the a c c u s e d 's c o n t e m p l a t ed objective of o v e r t h r o w i ng the g o v e r n m e n t. (ii) H a v i ng failed to get assurance that they ( a c c u s ed N o . 2, N o .3 a nd N o . 4) w o u ld be p r o v i d ed w i th secure transport a nd a c c e ss to R a d io L e s o t ho p r e m i s es on the 10th J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 6, the said 3 a c c u s ed a nd their c o- conspirators d e c i d ed to a b a n d on p r o c e e d i ng w i th their intention to o v e r t h r ow g o v e r n m e nt on the 10th J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 6. T h ey d e c i d ed to defer carrying out their intended objective of overthrowing g o v e r n m e nt to s o me other d a y. (iii) A c c u s ed N o. 1, N o . 2, N o .3 a nd N o .4 subsequently m et at L i t h a b a n e ng on or a b o ut the 3 rd F e b r u a r y, 1 9 96 to d e c i de on h ow to a p p r o a ch the c o m m a n d er of the L e s o t ho D e f e n ce ( L D F) w i th a v i ew to soliciting his support for the a c c u s e d 's intended objective of o v e r t h r o w i ng the g o v e r n m e n t. A c c u s ed N o. I a g r e ed to a p p r o a ch the c o m m a n d er o f L DF w i th a v i ew to a s k i ng h im to support t h em in their intended objective. (iv) A c c u s ed N o .1 s o me time in F e b r u a r y, 1 9 96 (the exact date to the prosecutor u n k n o w n) a p p r o a c h ed the c o m m a n d er of L DF a nd the director of N a t i o n al Security Services ( N S S) to a sk for their assistance a nd cooperation so as to e n s u re that their conspiracy s u c c e e d e d. (v) A c c u s ed N o .1 a nd N o .2 m et on the 2 8 th F e b r u a r y, 1 9 9 6, at or n e ar S p e e dy C o m p l ex C e n t r e, n e ar the R o m an Catholic Cathedral to h o ld discussions c o n c e r n i ng a d o c u m e nt that w as to be read o v er R a d io L e s o t ho on the 2 9 th F e b r u a r y, 1 9 96 a n n o u n c i ng the o v e r t h r ow of the g o v e r n m e n t. (vii)(sic) A c c u s ed N o . 1, N o . 2, N o . 3, N o .4 a nd other c o- conspirators m et at M a s e ru on the 2 9 th F e b r u a r y, 1 9 96 to m a ke final preparations c o n c e r n i ng the m a k i ng of the a n n o u n c e m e nt of the o v e r t h r ow of the g o v e r n m e nt o v er R a d io L e s o t h o. C. Pursuant to a nd in furtherance of the conspiracy, a c c u s ed N o. 1 a nd N o .2 together w i th another conspirator p r o c e e d ed to the R a d io L e s o t ho p r e m i s es on the 2 9 th d ay of F e b r u a r y, 1 9 96 w h e re they gained entry to the studio r o o m s; held the w o r k e rs at R a d io L e s o t ho captive by force so as to e n a b le a c c u s ed N o .1 to a n n o u n c e, without hindrance or interference the o v e r t h r ow of the g o v e r n m e n t. D. P u r s u a nt to a nd in furtherance the (sic) conspiracy, w h i le a c c u s ed N o .2 held the w o r k e rs of R a d io L e s o t ho confined in a r o o m, a c c u s ed N o .1 b r o a d c a st o v er R a d io L e s o t ho that in the .4 n a me of leaders of political parties, traditional leaders a nd the B a s o t ho nation he h ad dissolved g o v e r n m e nt a nd parliament; that he h ad s u s p e n d ed the 1 9 93 Constitution of L e s o t h o; that he w as asking for g o od cooperation f r om g o v e r n m e nt d e p a r t m e n t s; a nd that g o v e r n m e nt d e p a r t m e n ts s h o u ld a w a it further a n n o u n c e m e n ts f r om t i me to time. A l t e r n a t i v e ly C o u nt 2 - S e d i t i on T h at t he a c c u s ed a re guilty a re guilty (sic) of t he c r i me of S e d i t i o n. In that, u p on or a b o ut the 2 8 th to the 2 9 th d ay of F e b r u a r y, 1 9 9 6, a nd at or near M a s e r u, in the district of M a s e r u, the said a c c u s e d, e a ch or the other or all of t h e m, did unlawfully a nd w i th seditious intent participate in a gathering of a n u m b er of p e o p le w h i ch gathering h ad intent unlawfully to d e fy a nd subvert the authority of the G o v e r n m e nt of the K i n g d om of L e s o t ho a nd m a k i ng an unauthorised b r o a d c a st o v er R a d io L e s o t ho that H is M a j e s t y 's G o v e r n m e n t, the G o v e r n m e nt of the K i n g d om of L e s o t h o, h ad b e en destabilising the c o u n t ry a nd u n d e r m i n i ng p e a ce since the 1 9 93 general elections: 1. By c a u s i ng disunity a nd dissention in the a r m y, the police a nd prison w a r d e r s, resulting in deaths of B a s o t ho children, a nd also humiliating these forces in the N a t i o n al A s s e m b l y. 2. By illegally bringing into the country d a n g e r o us w e a p o ns of w ar t h r o u gh s o me of the parliamentarians. 3. By parliamentarians m i s u s i ng public f u n ds for the benefit of the B a s o t o l a nd C o n g r e ss Party ( B C P ). 4. By inviting foreign a r m i es to c o me a nd attack a nd dissolve the lawfully constituted a r my of the K i n g d om of L e s o t ho a nd therefore (the G o v e r n m e n t) t h e r e by subverting the Constitution ( 1 9 93 Constitution of L e s o t h o ). 5. By c a u s i ng disaffection a m o ng teachers' organizations a nd causing disunity a m o ng c h u r c h es a nd also by n ot resolving the i m p a s se c o n c e r n i ng teachers salaries w h e r e as G o v e r n m e nt c o n t i n u ed to p ay parliamentarians w ho h ad r un a w ay f r om the country. 6. By e m b a r k i ng on registration of voters for the 1 9 98 general elections w i t h o ut a ny consultations w i th political parties. 7. By deliberately a nd maliciously ignoring constituting a c o m m i s s i on of e n q u i ry into the d e a th of H is M a j e s ty K i ng M o s h o e s h oe II. Pursuant to a nd in furtherance of a c o n s p i r a cy to d e fy a nd subvert the authority of the G o v e r n m e nt of the K i n g d o m, the a c c u s ed further a n n o u n c ed m at as a c o n s e q u e n ce of of (sic) the aforesaid accusations w h i ch they h ad levelled against the G o v e r n m e nt of the K i n g d om of the K i n g d o m, (sic) they h ad dissolved the G o v e r n m e nt a nd the P a r l i a m e nt of the K i n g d o m; they a n n o u n c ed further they h ad s u s p e n d ed the 1 9 93 Constitution of L e s o t h o; they further a s k ed for c o o p e r a t i on f r om the a r m ed (security) forces so that their takeover of the G o v e r n m e nt c o u ld p r o c e ed s m o o t h ly a nd peacefully; a nd lastly they a n n o u n c ed that they s o u g ht cooperation f r om all G o v e r n m e nt d e p a r t m e n ts a nd that s u ch G o v e r n m e nt d e p a r t m e n ts s h o u ld a w a it further a n n o u n c e m e n ts f r om t i me to time. A l t e r n a t i v e ly C o u nt 3 - C o n t r a v e n t i on of S e c t i on 7 of t he I n t e r n al S e c u r i ty ( G e n e r a l) A c t, N o . 24 of 1 9 84 (Internal S e c u r i ty A c t ). T h at the a c c u s ed are guilty of contravening section 7 of the Internal Security A c t. In that, u p on or a b o ut the 2 8 th or the 2 9 th F e b r u a r y, 1 9 9 6, a nd at or n e ar M a s e r u, the a c c u s e d, did unlawfully a nd w i th subversive intent m a ke an a n n o u n c e m e nt o v er R a d io L e s o t ho that w as intended: (a) to prejudice public order and/or the security of L e s o t h o; and/or (b) counselling defiance to the l aw or lawful authority; a n d / or (c u n d e r m i ne or o v e r t h r ow or c a u se the d o w n f a ll of the G o v e r n m e n t, by a n n o u n c i ng that they h ad dissolved the G o v e r n m e nt a nd the Parliament of L e s o t h o; a n n o u n c i ng that they h ad s u s p e n d ed the 1 9 93 Constitution of L e s o t h o; calling u p on the security ( a r m e d) forces to c o o p e r a te w i th t h em a nd s u p p o rt t h em in their p u r p o r t ed t a k e o v er of G o v e r n m e nt other t h an by constitutional m e a n s; a nd s e e k i ng c o o p e r a t i on f r om all g o v e r n m e nt d e p a r t m e n ts in o r d er to e n s u re that their p r o c l a i m ed u n l a w f ul a nd constitutional (sic) t a k e o v er or g o v e r n m e nt s u c c e e d e d. A l t e r n a t i v e ly C o u nt 4 - K i d n a p p i ng T h at t he a c c u s ed a re guilty of K i d n a p p i n g. In that, u p on or a b o ut the 2 8 th or 2 9 th F e b r u a r y, 1 9 9 6, a nd at or n e ar M a s e ru in the district of M a s e r u, the said a c c u s e d, did unlawfully a nd intentionally d e p r i ve a n u m b er of R a d io L e s o t ho e m p l o y e e s, all of t h em adults, of their liberty by holding t h em captive by force in a r o om a t , R a d io L e s o t ho p r e m i s es w h e re they r e m a i n ed until they w e re s u b s e q u e n t ly freed by the security forces." It then b e c o m es the task of this C o u rt to i m p o se the sentence w h i ch is suitable in the circumstances of the case. W h at this m e a ns in the e nd is that I m u st b a l a n ce the mitigating factors against the r e q u i r e m e n ts of r e a s o n a b le p u n i s h m e nt d e s i g n ed to e n s u re m a i n t e n a n ce of l aw a nd order a nd deterrence. It is thus u p on this principle that I a p p r o a ch this matter. I should m e n t i on straight a w ay that I h a ve h ad the benefit of full s u b m i s s i o ns f r om all counsel involved in this matter as far as sentence is c o n c e r n e d. I h a ve t a k en into a c c o u nt all that t h ey h a ve said as w e ll as p e r s o n al c i r c u m s t a n c es of the individual a c c u s e d. I s h o u ld also m e n t i on that I h a ve m a i n ly b e en attracted by M r. Sello's s u b m i s s i on that the C o u rt m u st s e nd o ut a clear m e s s a ge that this court is n ot g o i ng to c o u n t e n a n ce a situation w h e r e by a d e m o c r a t i c a l ly elected g o v e r n m e nt of this c o u n t ry is destabilised as is the c a se here. In my v i ew this is a c a n d id a nd p r o p er s u b m i s s i on befitting of a senior officer of this C o u r t. I h o pe therefore that the s e n t e n ce I am a b o ut to i m p o se shall h a ve the desired effect. T he seriousness of the o f f e n ce is highlighted by the fact that the a c c u s ed a d m i t t e d ly a n n o u n c ed o v er the radio that t h ey h ad d i s s o l v ed the G o v e r n m e nt a nd the P a r l i a m e nt of the K i n g d om a nd also that t h ey h ad s u s p e n d ed the 1 9 93 Constitution of L e s o t ho w h i ch is the operative Constitution in the country. As if that w as not e n o u gh the a c c u s ed h ad the audacity to s e ek for cooperation f r om the a r m ed (security) forces " so that their take o v er of the G o v e r n m e nt c o u ld p r o c e ed s m o o t h ly a nd peacefully." In my v i ew the a c c u s e d 's a n n o u n c e m e nt o v er the radio as aforesaid is so serious that t h ey m u st c o u nt t h e m s e l v es l u c ky that t h ey h a ve e s c a p ed a conviction for high treason by the skin of their teeth t h a n ks to the p o w er of p l ea b a r g a i n i ng by c o u n s el involved. T he intention to o v e r t h r ow the G o v e r n m e nt m ay w e ll be g a t h e r ed f r om the said a n n o u n c e m e nt o v er the radio in w h i ch the a c c u s ed w e re o b v i o u s ly so confident that t h ey r e g a r d ed the dissolution of the G o v e r n m e nt as an a c c o m p l i s h ed fact. Be that as it m ay I r e m i nd m y s e lf that the a c c u s ed h a ve n ot b e en f o u nd guilty of h i gh treason in this case. I m u st p u n i sh t h em in respect of the o f f e n ce of sedition a nd n o t h i ng m o r e. In R ex v M o f e l e h e t si M o e r a ne a nd others 1 9 7 4 - 75 L LR 2 12 the highest s e n t e n ce for sedition w as six ( 6) y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e n t, the court there t o ok into a c c o u nt that the a c c u s ed w e re not acting for personal gains b ut rather out of a s e n se of grievance. T h ey w e re victims of political dissensions. I a c c e pt that e a ch c a se m u st be d e c i d ed on its o wn merits. T he difficulty here, t h o u g h, is that the a c c u s ed h a ve n ot told me w h at m o t i v a t ed t h em to c o m m it this offence. It h as b e en suggested on their behalf that they w e re u s ed as tools albeit d a n g e r o us o n e s. T h e re is h o w e v er no e v i d e n ce to that effect. In this r e g a rd I am m a i n ly attracted by the f o l l o w i ng r e m a r ks in S v V an N i e k e rk 1 9 81 (3) S. A. 2 3 9: "In the criminal career of e v e ry p e r s on it is of the greatest i m p o r t a n ce h ow it c a me a b o ut that he c o m m i t t ed his first crime. F or the p u r p o s es of an appropriate s e n t e n ce a nd his rehabilitation thereafter it is of material i m p o r t a n ce to investigate the m a t t er a nd to c o n s i d er carefully the a c c u s e d 's explanation thereof. He is the best p e r s on to s p e ak t h e r e o n ." W h at is clear to me is that in these d a ys of d e m o c r a cy in L e s o t ho political dissensions c an easily be a d d r e s s ed t h r o u gh the ballot b o x. T h e re is absolutely no n e ed to resort to the u n l a w f ul acts s u ch as the a c c u s ed are c h a r g ed with. I s h o u ld m e n t i on that it is a g r e ed by all c o n c e r n ed in this m a t t er that the a c c u s ed h a ve b e en f o u nd guilty of a v e ry serious o f f e n ce i n d e ed prejudicial to the public interest. T h e re is therefore a n e ed to i m p o se a s e n t e n ce w h i ch will m a ke a lasting i m p r e s s i on u p on the a c c u s ed a nd other like m i n d ed p e r s o ns a nd thus deter a nd restrain" t h em f r om further d e f y i ng a nd subverting the authority of the State by similar acts as are c o n t a i n ed in the c h a r ge in this m a t t er or at all. On the other h a n d, this court subscribes to the principle that justice m u st be t a m p e r ed w i th m e r c y. In S e k o n y e la a nd others v R ex 1 9 81 (1) L LR 41 at 44 M o f o k e ng J, as he t h en w a s, h ad this to s ay : "It is characteristic of C o u r ts of L aw to be merciful in their dealings w i th individuals w ho a p p e ar b e f o re t h em despite the horrible c r i m es t h ey h a ve b e en f o u nd to h a ve c o m m i t t e d ." I entirely agree a nd discern the n e ed to respectfully a d o pt these r e m a r ks in the m a t t er b e f o re m e. I shall therefore e x t e nd a h a nd of m e r cy to the a c c u s ed in this matter. In their favour, the a c c u s ed are all first offenders. I find that this is c o m m e n d a b le i n d e ed as t h ey m ay well be fallen a n g e ls as o p p o s ed to incorrigible r o g u e s. At a ny rate there is absolutely no e v i d e n ce b e f o re me that t h ey fall in the latter category. In this r e g a rd I am further attracted by w h at w as said in S v V an N i e k e rk 1 9 81 ( s u p r a) in the f o l l o w i ng w o r d s: " W h e re a court, in the imposition of s e n t e n c e, h as to do w i th a p e r s on w ho is a "first offender" or h as "a clean r e c o r d ", s u ch a p e r s on c an be either a "fallen a n g e l" or an "incorrigible r o g u e ". A ll that c an be c o n t e n d ed in t he interest of t he latter is that he h as n ot y et b e en p u n i s h ed by t he court for his c r i m es or h as n ot b e en w a r n e d ." T h e re is then the fact that the a c c u s ed h a ve p l e a d ed guilty a nd 1 am p r e p a r ed to accept that this is a d e m o n s t r a t i on of p e n i t e n ce a nd r e m o r se on their part. T h ey h a ve thus s h o wn their willingness to s q u a re their a c c o u n ts w i th society so to s p e a k. O n ce m o re 1 h a ve c o n s i d e r ed this factor in their favour. M o r e o v er I h a ve c o n s i d e r ed that t h ey m u st be g i v en a c h a n ce to r e f o rm rather t h an be b r o k e n. I h a ve also t a ke into a c c o u nt t he fact that t he a c c u s ed h a ve b e en in c u s t o dy for a b o ut t w e l ve ( 1 2) m o n t hs w h i le a w a i t i ng their trial in this matter. In all the c i r c u m s t a n c es of the c a se therefore I c o n s i d er that justice will be d o ne if the s e n t e n ce in respect of e a ch a c c u s ed is four ( 4) y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt half of w h i ch is s u s p e n d ed for five years on the condition that e a ch a c c u s ed is n ot f o u nd guilty of an o f f e n ce involving sedition c o m m i t t ed d u r i ng the p e r i od of s u ch s u s p e n s i on a nd I so order. My assessors a g r e e. For the C r o wn For A c c u s ed N os 1 and 4: For A c c u s ed No 2 : : M . M. R A M O D T B E DI J U D GE 12th M a r ch 1 9 97 M r. Mdhluli (The D P P) M r. Phoofolo M r. Sello 12