- Appeal against conviction and life sentences dismissed, with the court confirming procedural issues cannot overturn clear evidence.
- Both appellants actively facilitated the delivery of the victim to a community mob, leading to his death.
- The case highlights that taking the law into your own hands carries severe legal consequences.
The North West High Court, Mafikeng, has sent a clear warning to communities by stating that active participation in mob violence that results in death carries the full weight of the law.
Acting Judge JT Maodi, with Judge President RD Hendricks concurring, ruled that procedural arguments raised by legal representatives cannot overturn convictions when the evidence is clear.
Mathapelo Victoria Seichoko, 51, and Khantso Rosina Tlhalatsi, 60, were convicted of murder for their role in the fatal assault of Thabang Kabili. Both women were involved in forcibly removing the victim from his girlfriend’s home and delivering him to a community mob in Setlagole, where he was assaulted to death.
Evidence confirms active involvement
The court found that the first appellant, a police officer, drove the vehicle transporting the victim, while the second appellant ensured he could not escape. Witnesses testified that both women were present during the assault and did not dissociate themselves from the mob’s actions.
Bonolo Mokae, a key witness, provided consistent testimony about their role, which the court found credible. Other community members and co-accused were also involved in ensuring the victim could not flee and were present during the assaults.
On appeal, the women argued that the trial should have proceeded with assessors and that the court’s correction of its judgment was improper. The High Court rejected these arguments, noting that both appellants were legally represented and consented to the proceedings. The judgment confirms that procedural technicalities do not excuse participation in fatal violence when the evidence is clear.
Life sentences justified
The appellants also argued that their sentences were excessive, citing age, first-offender status, and family responsibilities, including caring for minor children and elderly relatives. The court found no substantial or compelling circumstances to reduce the life sentences, emphasising that the severity of the crime and the coordinated nature of the assault demanded full accountability.
The High Court upheld the life sentences imposed by the court a quo in the Regional Court.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
