23 Apr 2025

A defence attorney in the P2.3 million Turnrite Mall cash-in-transit robbery case has dismissed the matter as poorly investigated and that to seek a conviction against the four accused persons was purely opportunistic.

This is the how the defence attorney, Mr Nkosana Ngwenya on Tuesday summarised the state’s case against Mothusi Matomela, Thapelo Lekobe, Mzwandile Mazibuko and Ntholephi Elliot Ntshalintshali who are charged with robbing a G4S Security vehicle in October 2021.

“It appears clear that this is a poorly investigated matter and the attempt to get a conviction against the accused persons is purely opportunistic,” Mr Ngwenya said before Ms Goabaone Rammapudi-Lesedi at Broadhurst Magistrate’s Court.

 Mr Ngwenya who represents the South African duo of Mazibuko and Ntshalintshali said the prosecution case was poorly investigated and evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction.

 He said during the search and seizure of the four accused persons, there were two independent witnesses who were surprisingly never brought to the court to testify on what they saw. In addition, he said a search warrant for the said search and seizure was never presented to court, which nullified the exercise.

He said the accused persons were said to have been found in possession of a vehicle stolen outside Botswana, saying there was no proof from the purported owner that the vehicle was stolen.

He said without a police report from the South African Police and correspondence from Interpol that the vehicle was stolen, the court should be cautious with such evidence. Mr Ngwenya said there was no DNA conducted nor fingerprints taken to link the accused persons to the vehicle alleged to have been used as a getaway car.

 He said both Mazibuko and Ntshalintshali were also charged for entering the country illegally, yet there was no statement presented before the court from the relevant ministry, to substantiate that.

He said the investigating officer only told court that a team of 10 persons went on a journey to be shown where the accused entered the country, adding that such material fact was never substantiated, even by a member of the said team.

He said although the investigating officer had alleged that the second accused, Lekobe, was the most cooperative and demonstrated how the robbery was executed, that was denied by all the accused persons. He said prosecution failed to deposit a statement or confession from the accused person to substantiate the claim.

He said the four accused persons were charged for being found in possession of arms and ammunition, but no DNA or fingerprints were deposited before the court to link them to the crime, although no arms and ammunition were found in their possession.

Mr Ngwenya said although this was a criminal offence, no identification parade was conducted and no eye witnesses had in their statement indicated that they could positively identify the robbers. 

Meanwhile, Magistrate Rammapudi-Lesedi said she would need time before delivering the judgment. “I will be dealing with voluminous records. 

I am looking at three to four months to deliver the judgment,” Magistrate Rammapudi-Lesedi said. ENDS