CRI/T/43/93

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter of:

REX

v.

'MAMAKOAE
MOKOKOANE

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Hon. Mr. Justice B.K. Molai on the 13th day of February. 1994.

The
accused is summarily charged with six (6) counts of Theft by false
Pretences on the following allegations:

COUNT 1

In that upon or about 5th day of July, 1991, and at or near Treasury
Department in Maseru, in the district of Maseru, the said
accused did
unlawfully and with intent to defraud and to steal, misrepresent to
the Treasury Department that a certain payment
vouchers number 017107
dated 3rd July, 1991 was a good and honest vouchers for payment of.

2

stipends to certain internship students whose names were listed in an
appendix attached to. the said payment vouchers, and did,
by means of
the said misrepresentation obtain from the Treasury M15,200-00 the
property or in the lawful possession of the Lesotho
Government, which
money the accused did steal, thus committing the crime of THEFT BY
FALSE PRETENCES.

COUNT II

In that upon or about the 9th day of August, . 1991 and at or near
Treasury Department, in Maseru, in the district of Maseru, the
said
accused did unlawfully and with intent to defraud and steal,
misrepresent to the Treasury Department that a certain payment

vouchers number 023354 dated 7th August, 1991 was a good and honest
vouchers for payment of stipends to certain internship students
whose
names were listed in an appendix attached to the said vouchers, and
did, by means of the said misrepresentation, obtain from
the
Treasury, M15,200-00 to property or in the lawful possession of the
Lesotho Government, which money the said accused did steal,
thus
committing the crime of THEFT BY FALSE PRETENCES.

COUNT III

In that upon or about the 11th day of September, 1991 and at or near
Treasury Department, in Maseru, in the district of Maseru,
the said
accused did unlawfully and with intent to defraud and steal,
misrepresent to the Treasury Department that a certain payment

vouchers number 028772 dated 4th September, 1991 was a good and
honest vouchers for payment of stipends to certain internship
students whose names were listed in an appendix attathed to the said
vouchers, and did, by means of the said misrepresentation obtain
from
the Treasury M15,200-00 to the property or in the lawful possession
of the Lesotho Government which money the accused did
steal, thus
committing the crime of THEFT BY FALSE PRETENCES,

COUNT IV

In that upon or about the 8th day of October, 1991 and at or near
Treasury

3

Department, in Maseru, in the district of Maseru, the said accused
did unlawfully and with intent to defraud and to steal, misrepresent

to the Treasury Department that a certain payment vouchers number
033126 dated 8th October, 1991 was a good, and honest vouchers
for
payment of stipends to certain internship students whose names were
listed in an appendix attached to the said vouchers, and
did, by
means of the said misrepresentation, obtain from the Treasury
M15,200-00 the property or in the lawful possession of the
Lesotho
Government, which money the said accused did steal, thus committing
the crime of THEFT BY FALSE PRETENCES.

COUNT V

In that upon or about the 4th day of November, 1991 and at or near
Treasury Department, in Maseru, in the district of Maseru, the
said
accused did unlawfully and with intent to defraud and to steal,
misrepresent to the Treasury Department that a certain payment

vouchers number 036835, dated 4th November, 1991 was a good and
honest vouchers for payment of stipends to certain internship
students whose names were listed in an appendix attached to the said
vouchers, and did by means of the said misrepresentation obtain
from
the Treasury M15,200-00, the property or in the lawful possession of
the Lesotho Government, which money the said accused
did steal, thus.
committing the crime of THEFT BY FALSE PRETENCES.

COUNT VI

In that upon or about the 18th day of December, 1991 and or near
Treasury Department, in Maseru, in the district of Maseru the
said
accused did unlawfully and with intent to defraud and to steal,
misrepresent to the Department that a certain payment vouchers
number
046262, dated 18th December, 1991 was a good and honest vouchers for
payment of stipends to certain internship students
whose names were
listed in an appendix attached to the said vouchers, and did by means
of the said misrepresentation obtain from
the Treasury M15,200-00,
the property or in the lawful possession of the Lesotho Government,
which

4

money the said accused did steal, thus committing the crime of THEFT
BY FALSE PRETENCES.

When the
charges were put to her the accused pleaded not guilty and a plea of
not guilty was accordingly entered on all the six
(6) counts.
Eighteen (18) witnesses were called to testify in support of the
Crown case. No witnesses were called to testify on
behalf of the
defence although the accused herself gave evidence on oath.

It is
common cause from the evidence that the accused is a civil servant in
the Government of Lesotho. In 1991 she was the Accountant
at the
Accounts Section of the National Teacher Training College (N.T.T.C.)
which is a department in the Ministry of Education.
There exists, at
the N.T.T.C., a system whereby from July up to December each year,
students in the second year of their studies
go out to various
schools in the country to do teaching practice commonly known as
internship. During the period of their internship
the students ere
paid monthly allowances/stipend by the N.T.T.C. The money with which
to pay these allowances/stipend is obtained
by the accounts section
of the N.T.T.C. from the Treasury department of the Ministry of
Finance. It is the money admittedly obtained
from the Treasury
department purportedly for this purpose that the accused is alleged
to have stolen and thus committed the offenses

5

against
which she stands charged.

In as far
as it is relevant, P.W.6, Sehlotsoana Nts'ala, testified that he was
employed as Controller of Audits at the Audit Department
of the
Ministry of Finance. In 1991 he mounted a course for Auditors. In
order to demonstrate to the participants of the course
how a vote
book was reconciled with the Treasury records, he picked and used as
an example the vote book of N.T.T.C. In the course
of that exercise
it came to his notice that according to its records the Treasury had
made some payments which were, however, not
reflected in the N.T.T.C,
vote book. That arose some suspicions in the mind of P.W. 6 who
decided to follow up the anormally by
going to N.T.T.C. and carrying
out what he termed audit investigations.

At the
end of his investigations P.W.6 compiled a report which he addressed
to the Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Education.
He retained
a copy of the report for the records of his office. His efforts to
retrieve the original report for use before this
court were, however,
unsuccessful. He, therefore, handed in copy of the report as exhibit
I and part of his evidence in this trial.

6

According
to Exh I P.W.6's findings were briefly that in 1991 there were 161
students of N.T.T.C. doing their teaching practice
at various schools
commonly referred to as "sites". The students were to be
paid allowances/stipend at the rate of M80
each per month. The
payment was to be effected in the form of cheques issued in the names
of individual students.

Before
the start of internship period in July, 1991, a list of the names of
the students was submitted by the NTTC to the Computer
Centre of the
Treasury so that it could be computerised. cheques would then be
automatically issued in the names of individual
students at the end
of every month. The cheques would then be collected from the Treasury
Department by the N.T.T.C. for distribution
amongst the students at
their respective sites.

After the
cheques for the month of July, 1991 had been released from the
Treasury Department, it was found that the computer had
omitted the
names of some students who did not, therefore, receive their
allowances/stipend. Altogether eight (8) students did
not receive
their allowances/stipend. Consequently a vouchers was prepared,
apparently by a certain Mrs Qhobela who was the accounts
clerk at the
N.T.T.C. , to pay the eight (8) students in cash.

7

For the
months of August - December, 1991 there were still no cheques issued
in respect of the eight (8) students who were none
the less paid
their allowances/stipend in case although no payment vouchers had
been prepared and sent to the Treasury to procure
the funds for that
purpose. The remaining 153 students were duly paid their
allowances/stipend in the form of cheques issued, by
the computer
Centre of the Treasury Department, in their individual names during
the same period viz. from August to December,
1991. The cheques of
four (4) of the students had, however, underpayment totalling about
M370.00.

Notwithstanding
the fact that the 153 and the 8 internship students were duly paid
their allowances/stipend by individual cheques
and cash,
respectively, for the whole period of internship viz. from July to
December, 1991, P.W.6 found that during the same period
a vouchers
was prepared, every month by the N.T.T.C. to procure, from the
Treasury an amount of M15,200 purportedly to pay 190
instead of the
official 161 internship students' allowances/stipend at the rate of
M80.00 per student. As a result of those payment
vouchers the
Treasury issued six cheques to the tune of M15,200-00 each payable to
the Director N.T.T.C. (M.A. Mokokoane). The
cheques were all cashed
by the accused either at the Standard Bank or the Central Bank of
Lesotho. There was, however, no

8

record of
what the accused did with the money.

P.W.7,
Khoai Matete, told the court that at the material time viz. from July
to December, 1991 he was already the Principal Secretary
for
Education. He confirmed the evidence of P.W.6 that the latter
addressed to him the report, Exh I, which he subsequently passed
on
to the police for investigation. I shall return to the evidence of
P.W.7 later in this judgment.

P.W.1,
Captain Sekatle, testified that he was a police officer stationed at
the Police Headquarters here in Maseru. He confirmed
that he received
from the Ministry of Education Headquarters the report, Exh I. That
was on 5th March, 1992. Following receipt
of the report, he proceeded
to Audit Department of the Ministry of Finance. At the Audit
Department he met P.W.1 who gave him the
following documents:

1. Seven
   (7) payment vouchers of which six (6) reflected an amount of M15,200
   each whilst one reflected an amount of M640, Each of
   the six (6)
   payment vouchers reflecting M15,200 had a list of 190 names attached
   thereto. The payment vouchers reflecting the
   amount of M640 had a
   list of eight (8) names attached thereto.

   
   

2. A
   register book and

   
   

9

3. Records
   of students' cheques numbers filed according to the ten(10) sites
   where students were serving their teaching practice.

   
   

The seven (7) payment vouchers, the register book and the records of
students' cheques filed according to the sites where students
were
serving internship or teaching practice had since been in the police
custody. He handed them in as:

EXH A - Payment voucher for the month of July, 1991.

EXH A1 - payment voucher still for the month of July, 1991. EXH A2
payment voucher for the month of August, 1991.

EXH A3 - payment voucher for the month of September, 1991.

EXH.A4 - payment voucher for the month of October, 1991.

EXH A5 - payment voucher for the month of November, 1991.

EXH A6 - payment voucher for the month of December, 1991

EXH B - the register book.

EXH C1 - record of students" cheque numbers filed according to
Maputsoe site,

EXH C2 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to
Mohale's Hoek site.

EXH C3 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to Roma
site.

EXH C4 - records of students' cheque numbers filed according to
Morija

10

site.

EXH C5 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to Leribe
site.

EXH C6 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to
Mafeteng site.

EXH C7 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to
Butha-Buthe site.

EXH C8 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to Maseru
site.

EXH C9 - record of students' cheque numbers filed according to
Quthing site.

From the
Audit Department P.W.1 proceeded to the N.T.T.C. He met the Director
who referred him to a certain Mrs. Qhobela. A list
of 161 names of
students who were doing their teaching practice in 1991 and a Vote
Book were handed to him by Mrs. Qhobela. The
list of students and the
Vote Book had since been in the police custody.

He handed
them in as:

EXH D - the list of 161 names of students who were doing their
teaching practice in 1991.

EXH E - the Vote Book.

From the
N.T.T.C. P.W.1 went to the bank reconciliation section of the
Treasury department

11

where he
obtained six (6) used cheques which had been issued in the name of
"Director NTTC (M.A. Mokokoane)" as a result
of payment
vouchers Exh A, A2 - A6. The reverse side of each of the six (6)
cheques bore the signature and the Local Passport number
L.079911 of
the accused as indication that she was the person who had cashed
them. The cheques had since been in the custody of
the police. He
handed them in as :

EXH F - used cheque of M15,200 dated 3/7/91

EXH F1 - used cheque of M15,200 dated 7/8/91

EXH F2 - used cheque of M15,200 dated 9/9/91

EXH F3 - used cheque of M15,200 dated 11/10/91C

EXH F4 - used cheque of M15.200 dated 5/11/91

EXH F5 - used cheque of M15,200 dated 18/12/91

From the
Treasury department P.W.1 returned to his office at the Police
Headquarters. He called Mrs Ohobela of NTTC to his office
for
interrogations. Thereafter he called the accused whom he already
regarded as a suspect. He cautioned the accused, presumably
in terms
of the judges rules. As a result of accused's explanation P.W.1 went
to her house and carried out a search. He seized
accused's local
passport number L.09911 which had since been in the custody of the
police. He handed it in as:

EXH G -
Local Passport No. L.079911.

P.W. 1
subsequently cautioned and charged the accused as aforesaid.

12

P.W.3,
"Mabaphuthing Moorosi, told the court that in 1991 she was the
Internship Coordinator at NTTC. She had field supervisors
to assist
her in her work.

Before
the start of the teaching practice in July, 1991 P.W.3 made
preparations for 160 NTTC students who were to do their teaching

practice from July up to December, 1991. To facilitate payment of
allowances/stipend to the students she opened a register (Exh
B)
showing the following headings; the year, the names of sites and
students, the months and signature; she caused the names of
the
students to be listed on a sheet of paper (Exh D) which she sent to
the accounts office of the NTTC; she supplied copies of
Exh D to the
offices of the Director NTTC, the Deputy Director and the field
supervisors at the various teaching sites throughout
the country.

Towards
the end of July, 1991 P.W.3 was notified by the accounts' office of
the NTTC that the stipend money was ready for collection.
She took
her register (Exh B) and proceeded to the accounts Office where a
certain Mrs, Qhobela gave her the stipend money in the
form of
cheques issued in the names of individual students. After she and
Mrs. Qhobela had checked them against the names of students
in Exh B,
P.W.3 took the cheques and returned to her office where she entered

13

the
cheque number of each student opposite his/her name. She kept the
cheques in her office until they were collected therefrom
by the
field supervisors for distribution amongst the students under their
supervision in the various teaching sites. When they
collected the
cheques the field supervisors signed in the register (Exh B) as proof
that they had done so.

After all
the cheques had been collected from her office it came to P.W.3's
notice that seven (7) of the students who had been listed
in Exh D
did not have cheques for their stipend. She also noticed that the
name of one student, Thoo 'Mamonki, had in fact been
erroneously
omitted in Exh D. She went to the Accounts Office of NTTC and
reported the matter. She reported that altogether eight
(8) students
had not received their stipend for the month of July, 1991. She made
a list of the eight (8) students which list she
handed to Mrs Qhobela
and, in her own handwriting, added the name of Thoo 'Mamonki in Exh D
thus increasing the official number
of students who were serving
their teaching practice in 1991 to 161, She told the court that the
names listed in the annexure to
Exh A1 were the names she had handed
to Mrs Qhobela as being of the students who had not received their
stipend cheques for the
month of July, 1991.

When, at
the end of August 1991, she went to

14

collect
the stipend money from the accounts office of NTTC, P.W.3 was given
by Mrs Qhobela, cheques issued in the names of 153 students
plus cash
amounting to M1280 being payment for the months of July and August
1991 in respect of the eight (8) students who had
not been paid their
stipend in July 1991. The cheques and cash were checked, against the
list of students in Exh B, by Mrs Qhobela
and P.W.3 before the latter
could take the stipend money to her office from where the field
supervisors collected it for distribution
amongst the students under
their supervision. The same procedure was followed for the months of
September to December, 1991 with
the exception that the total cash
amount for the eight (8) students who were not paid by cheques was
M640 a month.

In her
evidence P.W.3 told the court that whenever she went to collect the
stipend money from the Accounts Office of the NTTC she
would find the
accused, who was the Accountant, and Mrs Qhobela, who was the
accounts clerk in the office. She would then inquire
whether the
money was available for collection and the accused would reply: "Yes,
Mrs Qhobela serve her, please," As
she said so the accused would
hand an envelop to Mrs. Qhobela who proceeded to a cabinet from where
she brought cheques issued
in the individual names of the internship
students. Mrs Qhobela would then hand over to her (P.W.3) the

15

envelop
containing the amount of M640 in cash, after they (Mrs Qhobela and
P.W.3) had checked the stipend money, against the names
of students
listed in Exh B, in the presence of the accused.

According
to P.W.3, in September, 1991 after they had collected from her
office, the stipend money for distribution amongst the
students, some
of the field supervisors brought to her attention that the stipend
cheques issued in respect of certain students
had shortfalls. She
reported the matter to the accused. In December, 1991 the shortfalls
had still not been adjusted by the accused's
office and P.W.3 was
obliged to remind the accused who conceded that she had not yet made
the adjustments. According to her P.W.3
made a list of the names of
the students who had been affected by the shortfalls and the amounts
thereof. She handed the list as
Exh H and part of her evidence in
this trial.

P.W.3
told the court that early in 1992 the office of the Internship
Co-ordinator was abolished. She became a lecturer at the NTTC
and had
since been teaching Development Studies. She did not, therefore, know
if the shortfalls in the payment of students whose
names were listed
in Exh H were eventually made good.

16

Makoae
Matooane, Edward Lebamang Thulo, 'Mathabo Lucia Tikoe, John Phamotse
Notsi and Bolelang Hilda Qbobela testified as P.W.12,
P.W.13, P.W.
14, P.W.15 and P.W. 16, respectively, in this trial. They told the
court that during the months of July to December
1991, When some
students of NTTC were serving their-teaching practice, they were
field supervisors assisting P.W.3 in her work.
They confirmed that
the field supervisors collected, from the office of the co-ordinator,
allowances/stipend in the form of cheques
and cash for distribution
amongst the students as described by P.W.3. Some of the cheques had
shortfalls which were reported to
P.W.3. The shortfalls were
eventually paid to the students,

Lucy
Makamane, 'Mathootse Phalatsi and 'Mathabo Machai gave evidence on
oath as P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W. 11, respectively. They told
the court
that they were school teachers. However, in 1991 they were second
year students at NTTC when they did their teaching
practice at Maseru
site from July up to December. They confirmed that P.W.12 was one of
their field supervisors. All the students
who were doing their
teaching practice at Maseru site were paid their stipend in the form
of cheques with the exception of two,
viz. P.W. 10 and Marethabile
Motloung who were paid in cash.

17

According
to P.W.13 he himself paid the shortfalls to two of. the students
whose names appeared in Exh H. The two students were
Molietsana
Mabula and Masehloho Mabula. The evidence of P.W,13 was in that
regard confirmed by Molietsana Mabula and Masehloho
Mabula who
testified as P.W. 17 and P.W. 18, respectively, in this trial.

According
to her, P.W.14 was the field supervisor at Mohale's Hoek in 1991.
Nkuebe, one of the students whose name appeared in Exh
H, did her
teaching practice in Mohale's Hoek. In November, 1991 the stipend
cheque of Nkuebe had a shortfall. Although she reported
the matter to
the office of the co­ordinator, P.W,14 no longer remembered if
the shortfall was eventually made good. However,
Manthema Nkuebe
herself testified as P.W.8 and told the court that for July and
August, 1991 she was paid allowance/stipend at
the rate of M50 per
month. When in August 1991 her colleagues were paid arrears of M60
she was not paid the arrears until the end
of the teaching practice
period in December, 1991. It was only after she had returned from the
teaching practice and was back at
the NTTC in 1992 that the M60
arrears were paid to her by P.W.3 herself.

It is
worth noting that according to Exh H, Mposho 'Madaniele, Lesekele
'Masetho and Nkolonyane

18

Justina
were three of the students whose stipend cheques had shortfalls. They
served their teaching practice at Maseru, Butha-Buthe
and
Teyateyaneng sites, respectively. However, P.W.12, one of the field
supervisors for Maseru site, did not mention Mposho 'Madaniele
as
being one of his students who had a shortfall in the payment of her
stipend nor was Mposho 'Madaniele herself called as a witness
to
enlighten the court in this regard.

In her
evidence in chief, P.W.14 told the court that all her students were
paid their stipend during the period of their teaching
practice,
However, under cross-examination she testified that Nkuebe
'Malethema, one of the students whose name appeared in Exh
H as
having had a shortfall in the payment of her stipend, did not receive
her cheque in either November or December, 1991. According
to her,
P.W.14 reported the matter to the co-ordinator but had no knowledge
if the shortfall was eventually made good, Nkuebe 'Malethema,'herself

was not called as a witness.

According
to Exh H, Nkoloanyane Justina, one of the students who had a
ahortfall in her payment of stipend served her teaching practice
at
Teyateyaneng site. Neither her field supervisor nor Nkolonyane
Justina herself testified in this trial. The court had, therefore,
no
way of verifying whether or not the

19

shortfall
was in fact eventually made good.

In her
testimony P.W.4, 'Manathniel Qhobela told the court that she was a
civil servant in the Government of Lesotho, attathed to
the Ministry
of Education Headquarters. From 1989 up to 1993 she was attathed to
the Accounts Office of the NTTC as Accounts Clerk
under the immediate
supervision of the Accountant. When she first came to NTTC in 1989,
the Accountant was a certain Mrs Polisa.
When she left the NTTC in
1990 Mrs Polisa was replaced by the accused as the Accountant and,
therefore, her immediate supervisor.
Before the second year students
at NTTC could commence their teaching practice in July 1991 she was
instructed by the accused to
obtain, from the Treasury Department,
computer forms with which to prepare for payment of
allowances/stipend to the students. She
complied.

According
to P.W.4, the accused then gave her a list of the names of students
(Exh D) who were to go for their teaching practice
in 1991. As it
will be seen later in this judgment, the accused denied the evidence
that she was the one who had handed the list
of the names of students
to P.W.4. According to the accused, the list had been handed to her
by P.W.4 and

20

not vice
versa. It will be remembered chat in her evidence P.W.3 testified
that after she had prepared it, she took the list of
the names of
students (Exh D) to the Accounts Office where she handed it to P.W.4.
The evidence of P.W.3 corroborated, therefore,
that of the accused
and P.W.4 was, in all probabilities, mistaken in her evidence that
the accused had handed to her the list of
the names of students (Exh
D).

Be that
as it may, P.W.4 went on to testify that the computer forms were to
be completed with the names of the students. Although
P.W.4 no longer
remembered how many names there were on the list given to her by the
accused, she was sure that the list consisted
of several pages which
she and the accused shared between themselves to expedite the work of
completing the computer forma. After
they had been completed P.W.4
took the computer forms to the Treasury department which would issue
cheques in the names of individual
students for payment of their
monthly allowances/stipend. There would be no need to repeat the
procedure described above as the
computer would henceforth
automatically issue the cheques every month for the duration of the
teaching practice period i.e. from
July to December, 1991.

According
to P.W.4, after the Treasury department had, in July 1991, issued
stipend cheques which were

21

duly
handed to P.W.3 for distribution amongst the students in their
various teaching practice sites, the. accused gave her a list
of
eight(8) students whose names had allegedly been omitted by the
computer and did not, therefore, receive their allowances/stipend.

Again on the instructions of the accused, P.W.4 prepared a payment
vouchers, Exh A1. She took Exh A1 to a certain Mr. Sehloho Mothae
who
was the Deputy Director at NTTC for authorization. After it had been
authorised, P.W.4 took Exh A1 to the Treasury department
where a
cheque to the tune of M640, payable to "Director NTTC
(M.Qhobela)" was issued. P.W.4 took the cheque and went
to the
bank where she herself cashed it. She returned to NTTC where she
handed, to the accused, the amount of M640 in cash. That
was the
beginning of August, 1991. She did not know where the accused kept
the M640 in the Accounts Office.

After she
had obtained the M640 cash for the eight (8) students who had not
received their cheques for the month of July 1991, P.W.4
expected
that they would be paid by cheques, like the rest of the students for
the remaining months of their teaching practice
period viz. from
August to December, 1991, When P.W.3 came to collect money for
payment of the allowances/stipend to the student,
at the end of
August, 1991, P.W.3 realised, however, that the cheques for the eight
(8) students were still not

22

included
amongst the cheques which the accounts office had received from the
Treasury department, as allowances/stipend for the
internship
students. In any event the accused gave her an envelop which
contained double the amount of M640 in cash. After she
and P.W.3 had
checked the money against the list of students in Exh B, P.W.4 was
able to give P.W.3 sufficient money to pay the
153 and the 8 students
their allowances/stipend by cheques and cash, respectively.

When they
were received for the months of September up to December 1991, the
students' cheques still did not include the cheques
for the eight (8)
students who had to be paid by cash whilst the rest of the students
were paid by cheques. According to P.W.4
either she or the accused
collected the students' cheques from the Treasury department
depending on who of them had gone to the
Treasury department at the
time the cheques were ready for collection. She denied, therefore,
the suggestion that she alone was
the person who always collected the
cheques from the Treasury department. When she was the one who
happened to be at the Treasury
department and, therefore, collected
them P.W.4 always showed the cheques to the accused, who was
admittedly her senior officer,
before putting them where cheques were
normally kept viz. in the filing cabinet in the

23

Accounts
Office. P.W.4 confirmed the evidence of P.W.3 that at the end of
every month, the latter used to come to the accounts office
to
collect the money with which to pay the allowances/stipend to the
students. On the instructions of the accused who always gave
her an
envelop containing an amount of M640 in cash P.W.4 would go to the
filing cabinet from where she brought the students' cheques.
After
she and P.W.3 had checked both the cheques and the cash, often in the
presence of the accused, P.W.4 would hand the money
over to P.W,3.
P.W.4 assured the court, therefore, that for the duration of the
teaching practice period viz. from July to December,
1991, the
accounts office of the NTTC had, every month, released to P.W.3
cheques issued in the names of individual students and
cash amounting
to M640 as payment of allowances/stipend to the 153 and the 8
students, respectively.

In her
testimony P.W.4 confirmed the evidence of P.W.7 that the latter had
in the past been the Director of NTTC and, therefore,
the person
empowered to authorise vouchers for payment at that institution.
However, at the time the students of NTTC were serving
their teaching
practice in 1991 P.W.7 was no longer the Director of NTTC. He had
moved to the Headquarters of the Ministry of Education
as the
Principal Secretary. According to her, P.W.4 knew

24

that
during the time he was the Director of NTTC, P.W.7 often took trips
outside the country when he would be away from the college
for a
number of days. In order that his absence from NTTC might not
adversely affect the work of the accounts office, P.W.7 used
to sign,
in blank, payment vouchers forms which he handed to the Accountant
for safe custody and use, should the need to do so
arise, during his
absence.

P.W.4
told the court that in September, 1991, the accused gave her a list
of 190 names of students, who were purportedly doing their
teaching
practice in the field and a payment vouchers form already signed, in
blank, by P.W.7. The accused instructed her to prepare
a payment
vouchers so that the students whose names appeared in the list might
be paid their allowances/stipend at the rate of
M80 per student.
P.W.4 considered the accused's instructions that a vouchers should be
prepared to pay allowances/stipend to the
students, rather abnormal
because she knew that the students were paid by cheques issued, by
the Treasury department, in their
individual names. When she brought
that to her attention the accused told P.W.4 to leave the matter with
her. P.W. 4 then carried
out the accused's instructions and
accordingly prepared the payment vouchers, Exh A3, payable to
"Director NTTC (M.A. Mokokoane)".
After it had been

25

entered
in the Vote Book (Exh E) Exh A3 was dispatched to the Treasury
Department for the issuance of a cheque.

In
October 1991, the accused again gave P.W.4 a list of the names of
students purportedly serving their teaching practice in the
field and
a vouchers form pre-signed, in blank, by P.W.7 with instructions that
she should prepare a payment vouchers in order
to pay
allowance/stipend to the students. P.W.4 complied and accordingly
prepared the payment vouchers, Exh A4 payable to "Director
NTTC
(M.A. Mokokoane) which was entered in the Vote Book (Exh E). Exh A4
was duly dispatched to the Treasury department for the
issuance of a
cheque.

When she
was shown payment vouchers Exh A, Exh A2, Exh A5 and Exh A6 for the
months of July, August, November and December, 1991,
respectively,
P.W.4 told the court that she did not know the circumstances under
which they had been prepared. She, however, assured
the court that
she knew the handwriting of the accused very well. Judging by the
handwriting in which they were prepared P.W.4
told the court that Exh
A, A2, A5 and A6 were prepared by the accused herself.

P.W.4
told the court that she had no personal knowledge whether or not as a
result of payment

26

vouchers
Exh A. A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6, the Treasury department did issue
cheques to the tune of M15,200 which was the amount reflected
on each
of the six (6) exhibits. She denied, in particular that after she had
cashed the cheques issued by the Treasury department
as a result of
the payment vouchers, Exh A, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6, the accused
handed the money to her.

P.M.5,
Sehloho Mothae, testified that he was the Deputy Director of NTTC
since November 1987. As such he was not empowered to authorise

vouchers for payment. Only the Director was empowered to do so at
NTTC.

After
P.W.7 who was the Director of NTTC had moved to the Headquarters of
the Ministry of Education to assume the duties of Principal
Secretary
he (P.W.5) was appointed the Acting Director of the College and,
therefore, empowered to authorise payment vouchers.
That was with
effect from 1st March, 1991.

When the
second year students of NTTC commenced their teaching practice in
July 1991, P.W.5 was, therefore, already the Acting Director.
The
accused and P.W.4 were the Accountant and the Accounts Clerk,
respectively, at the college. P.W.5 remembered that on one occasion

during the month of July 1991 PW, 4

27

brought
to him the payment vouchers, Exh A1 to which was annexed a list of
eight' (8) names of students who were allegedly serving

internship/teaching practice and had inadvertently not been . paid
their allowances/stipend. P.W.5 confirmed the evidence of P.W.4
that
he consequently authorised the payment vouchers, Exh A1, by appending
his signature thereto.

P.W.2,
Tlohang Sekhamane, testified that he was a Lecturer at the National
University of Lesotho. From 1991 to 1993 he was the Director
of NTTC.
He remembered that in December 1991 he was already the Director at
NTTC when one day he found the payment vouchers, Exh
A6 placed in his
tray for signature. Exh A6 was apparently for payment of an amount of
M1,520 as stipend to 19 internship students
whose names were listed
in an annexure thereto. As he was aware that during their teaching
practice students were paid by cheques
issued in their individual
names by the Treasury department, P.W.2 called the accused, who was
the Accountant at NTTC to his office
for an explanation. In her
explanation, the accused told him that the names of the 19 students
had been omitted by the computer
at the Treasury department. The
students did not, therefore, receive their stipend cheques. In the
circumstances a payment vouchers
had to be prepared in order that the
students might be paid their stipend.

28

According
to him, P.W.2 was not quite convinced with the accused's explanation.
He sought verification of accused's explanation
from P.W.5 who
confirmed that where the computer had omitted the names of some
students it was permissible to pay those students
by vouchers. It was
only then that P.W.2 authorised Exh A6 by appending his signature
thereto.

However,
Exh A6 was later on shown to him by P.W.6, who was at the time
auditing the account books of NTTC, as being suspicious.
On examining
it, P.W.2 realised that Exh A6 was not in the condition he had signed
it. The list of the names of students annexed
to Exh A6 had been
changed to read 190 instead of 19 students. The amount reflected on
Exh A6 had also been altered to read M15,200
instead of Ml,520. The
alteration on the amount reflected in Exh A6 had initials which were
not his. P.W.2 told the court that
if the alterations were there at
the time he signed Exh A6, he would have definitely added his own
initials thereto because he,
as the Director of NTTC, was the person
applying for the release of funds from the Treasury department.

According
to P.W.2, after P.W.6 had shown him Exh A6 he took it to the accused
and questioned her about the anomaly on it. However,
the accused told
him she did not like to be investigated in that manner. He

29

then left
her alone and returned Exh A6 to P.W.6.

Returning
now' to his evidence, P.W.7 told the court that he left NTTC for the
Headquarters of the Ministry of Education where he
assumed the duties
of Principal Secretary on 18th January, 1991. He confirmed the
evidence of P.W.5 that the Director of NTTC was
the only person
empowered to authorise payment vouchers by signing them. When he was
the Director of NTTC, the practice was to
bring to him payment
vouchers together with the vote book. After satisfying himself that
proper entries had been made in the vote
book and funds were
available to meet the amounts reflected in the payment vouchers P.W.7
would sign. The signed payment vouchers
would then be taken to his
Personal Secretary who put the line stamp impression of the Director
of NTTC on the vouchers. P.W.7
never himself wrote his designation
below his signature on the payment vouchers

P.W.7
confirmed the evidence that there was, at NTTC a system whereby
students in their second year of studies went to various sites
in the
country to do teaching practice. During the period of their teaching
practice, the students were paid stipend in the form
of cheques
issued in their individual names by the Treasury Department.

30

During
his turn of office as the Director of NTTC there were occasions when
P.W.7 had to travel outside the country on official
duties. On those
occasions he used to sign, in blank, payment vouchers forms which he
handed to the accused, as the Accountant,
for safe custody and use
during his absence. The reason for so doing was especially to enable
the accused to pay for purchase of
perishables such as fresh food
supplied to the students of the college. It was never the intention
that the presigned vouchers
forms would be used for any other
purpose, in particular payment of stipend to internship students who
were paid by cheques issued
in their individual names by the Treasury
Department.

P.W.7 was
positive that during the months of July up to December, 1991 when
payment vouchers, Exh A, Exh A2, Exh A3 Exh A4 and Exh
A5, were
apparently prepared and authorised, he was already the Principal
Secretary for Education at the Headquarters of the Ministry
of
Education and, therefore, no longer the Director of NTTC. He assured
the court that he did not at that time, authorise the exhibits
for
payment. Nor were the vouchers ever brought to him at the Ministry of
Education for authorization. He told the court that what
could have
happened was that the accused still had some of the pre-signed
vouchers forms which were apparently used to prepare
Exh A, Exh A2,
Exh A3, Exh

31

A4 and
Exh A5.

In her
defence, the accused confirmed that, at all material times, she and
P.W.4 were the Accountant and the Accounts Clerk respectively,
at the
NTTC. P.W.4 was already working at the college when she (Accused)
first joined NTTC on 2nd January, 1990. According to the
Accused,
there was no proper handing over between herself and Mrs Polisa from
whom she took over as Accountant at the NTTC. A fact
which was,
however, denied not only by P.W.4 but also P.W.7.

It may,
perhaps, be necessary to mention that P.W.4 told the court that she
was in the accounts office on the day the accused first
arrived at
NTTC and she saw Mrs Polisa actually showing some files to her. As
she was, however, not conversant with the procedure
of handing over,
P.W.4 would not know whether or not what Mrs Polisa and the accused
were doing amounted to proper handing over.

It may be
mentioned that in his evidence P.W.7 told the court that a few days
after Mrs Polisa had left NTTC, the accused reported
to him that
there had not been handing over between herself and Mrs. Polisa. As
she had been transferred to the Headquarters of
the Ministry of
Education under which NTTC was a

32

department,
P.W.7 immediately made arrangements for Mrs Polisa to return to NTTC
so Chat she could make a proper handing over to
the accused. Mrs.
Polisa accordingly came back to NTTC for the purpose of making proper
handing over to the accused.

There can
be no doubt from her evidence that the accused was aware that when
she took over from Mrs. Polisa a proper handing over
had to be made.
If it were true that Mrs Polisa did not hand over to her even after
P.W.7 had recalled her to. NTTC, the accused
would no doubt have
reported the fact to him. She did not. I am inclined, therefore, to
believe that even if it were true that
there was no handing over
between the accused and Mrs. Polisa when the latter first left NTTC,
there was handing over between them
after P.W.7 had recalled Mrs.
Polisa to the college for that purpose.

Be that
as it may, the accused went on to tell the court that before she came
to the college in January, 1990, she knew nothing
about the system of
paying stipend to NTTC students who were doing their teaching
practice. However, one day in September, 1990
she was at the Treasury
department when a certain girl gave her a message for P.W.4. The
message was that the accused should notify
P.W.4 that her cheques
were ready for collection. On her return to NTTC, the

33

accused
gave the message to P.W.4 and at the same time inquired from P.W.4
what the cheques were for. In reply P.W. 4 told her that
they were
stipend cheques for the NTTC students who were doing their teaching
practice. That wag how she (accused) came to know
that NTTC students
who were doing their teaching practice were paid stipend by cheques
issued by the Treasury Department. Thereafter
the accused used to
collect the cheques whenever she found them ready for collection
during her visits at the Treasury department.
She subsequently handed
the cheques to P.W.4 at the NTTC.

Although
P.W.4 had told her that the duration of the teaching practice was for
six months, viz. from July to December, 1990, the
cheques for payment
of stipend to the students continued to be issued until March, 1991
when the accused pointed out the anormally
to a certain Mr. Ramoea at
the Treasury Department. The cheques which had been issued after the
expiry of teaching practice period
of 1990 together with similar
cheques of previous years were kept in the filing cabinet at the
accounts office of the NTTC. P.W.4
was supposed to cancel and return
them to the Treasury department together with their journals i.e.
forms which were completed
in respect of the cheques indicating that
such cheques had been cancelled.

34

The
accused conceded Chat at the time he was doing his work at NTTC P.W.6
took possession of a large number of stale cheques. The
cheques had
been issued to pay stipend to students after the period of their
teaching practice had expired. They were waiting for
their journals
to be prepared by P.W.4 before they could be returned to the Treasury
department. The accused handed the cheques
to P.W.6 after she had
found them lying in the filing cabinet and the desk drawer of P.W.4
who was not in at the time. Assuming
the correctness of her evidence,
there is no doubt in my mind that before the start of the teaching
practice period in July 1991,
the accused was aware that the students
were paid their stipend by cheques issued at the Treasury department.

In her
evidence, the accused denied that during his turn of office as the
Director of NTTC, P.W.7 ever gave her vouchers forms which
he had
signed in blank for her safe custody and use to purchase fresh
rations for students whilst he was away from the college
on official
duties outside the country. According to the accused, P.W.7 always
discussed such matters with P.W.4. The evidence
of P.W.7 was however,
corroborated in that regard by P.W.4 who told the court that she did
not even know where the accused kept
the vouchers forms that had been
pre-signed by P.W.7 before going out of the country on official

35

trips,

In my
view, once P.W.7 had signed them, in blank, the vouchers forma were
open to abuse and for that reason very important documents,
indeed. I
find it incredible that P.W.7 could have entrusted such important
documents to P,W,4 who was admittedly an accounts clerk
and,
therefore, a junior officer in the accounts section of the NTTC. For
this reason I am inclined to accept as the truth the
evidence of
P.W.7 corroborated by that of P.W.4 that the presigned vouchers forms
were left in the custody of the accused who was
admittedly the
Accountant and, therefore, a senior officer in the accounts section
of the NTTC.

According
to the accused, in June, 1991 i.e. before the start of the teaching
practice period in July, 1991, P.W.4 informed her
that the list of
the names of students who were to go for their teaching practice was
available. P.W.4 pointed out that the mode
of paying stipend to
students by cheques, was troublesome and multiplying work. She showed
her a large number of journals which
had to be prepared as a result
of paying students by cheques. She also pointed out that the Treasury
department invariably issued
cheques incorrectly. Wherefor P.W.4
suggested that for the 1991 teaching practice period students should
be paid by cash instead
of cheques. According

36

to her at
the end of every month, the accused had to prepare a status of funds
report for the Director of NTTC and the Headquarters
of the Ministry
of Education. She always experienced problems as to where to find the
information for the expenditure incurred
by payment of stipend to
students by cheques. She did receive from the Treasury department
computer prints out which reflected
how much money had been used
every month by NTTC. The prints out did not, however, reflect the
expenditure incurred by payment
of stipend to students by cheques.
For all these reasons the accused agreed that the mode of paying
stipend to students should
be changed as suggested by P.W.4.

The
accused told the court that at the time she and P.W.4 agreed that the
stipend should be paid to students by cash instead of
cheques she
asked the latter to remind her of that at the time she would be
preparing payment vouchers for wages. At the beginning
of July,1991
the accused was preparing payment vouchers for wages when P.W.4
brought to her a list of 190 names of students who
were allegedly
doing their teaching practice and had, therefore, to be paid stipend.
At the same time P.W.4 gave her a vouchers
form signed, in blank, by
P.W.7 who was by then the Principal Secretary for Education. When she
asked her why she wanted her to
use a vouchers form

37

which
P.W.7 had signed in blank, P.W.4 explained that the authority at NTTC
viz. P.W.5 who was the Acting Director of NTTC did not
understand the
procedure for authorising payment vouchers and she (P.W.4) had had to
go to the Ministry of Education and seek the
assistance of P.W.7.
According to her, the accused was satisfied with P.W.4's explanation
on the basis of which she prepared the
payment vouchers, Exh A,
payable to "Director NTTC (MA. Mokokoane)". Exh A was then
dispatched to the Treasury department
together with other vouchers
which the accused had been preparing.

According
to her, the accused knew nothing about the computer forms which had
to be completed in the names of the students at the
beginning of the
teaching practice. She denied, therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 that
when they were to be completed she and the
accused shared the
computer forms between themselves in order to expedite the work.

For the
months of August and November, 1991, the accused was again preparing
payment vouchers for the wages when P.W.4 gave her
a list of 190
names of students and vouchers forms signed, in blank, by P.W.7 with
the request that she (accused) should prepare
vouchers for payment of
stipend to the students who were allegedly doing their teaching
practice. The same explanation, viz that
P.W. 5 did not understand

38

the
procedure of authorising payment vouchers and the assistance of P.W.7
had to be sought was given.

It is to
be remembered that in her evidence P.W.4 told the court that in
July,1991 she took exh A1 to P.W.5 who authorised it for
payment.
P.W.4 was in that regard corroborated by P.W.5 himself. The story
that in August and November, 1991 P.W.7 had to authorise
Exh A2 and
A5, respectively, for payment because P.W.5 did not understand the
procedure cannot, therefore, be correct.

Be that
as it may, on the basis of the explanation given by P.W.4, the
accused complied with the request by preparing exhibits A2
and A5
both payable to "Director NTTC (M.A. Mokokoane)". Exhibits
A3 and A4 were, however, prepared by P.W.4 herself.
They were also
payable to "Director NTTC (M.A. Mokokoane)".

After
they had been prepared. Exhibits A, A2, A3, A4 and A5 were dispatched
to the Treasury department, together with the other
payment vouchers
that the accused had been preparing at the time P.W.4 gave her the
list of 190 names of students and the vouchers
forms signed, in
blank, by P.W.7.

39

It is
significant that P.W.4 denied to have given to the accused the list
of 190 names of students and vouchers forms signed, in
blank, by
P.W.7 as alleged. In her own words, the accused told the court that
at the time P.W.4 allegedly gave her the vouchers
form signed, in
blank, by P.W.7 to prepare the payment vouchers Exhibits A, A2 and A5
she (accused) was preparing other payment
vouchers which were also
dispatched to the Treasury department. There was no suggestion that
these other payment vouchers were
referred to the Ministry of
Education for authorization by P.W.7. It can be assumed, therefore,
that the other payment vouchers
were authorised for payment at NTTC.
Assuming the correctness of this assumption I find it unreasonable to
believe the accused's
story that she had to use vouchers forms
signed, in blank, to prepare Exh A, A2 and A5 because the pre-signed
forms were given
to her for use by P.W.4 with the explanation that
P.W.5 did not understand the procedure for authorising payment
vouchers. The
truth of the matter is, in my opinion, that the accused
is trying to hide away the fact that the presigned vouchers forms
were
left in her custody as alleged by P.W.7. She used some of the
forms to prepare Exh A, A2 and A5 whilst others she gave to P.W.4
to
prepare Exh A3 and A4 as testified by P.W.4 herself.

40

According
to the accused when she admittedly prepared payment vouchers Exh A6
P.W.4 was not present to give her a vouchers form
signed, in blank,
by P.W.7. She used an ordinary payment vouchers form to prepare Exh
A6. She, however, denied the evidence of
P.W.2 that at the time she
brought it to him for authorization Exh A6 reflected an amount of
Ml,520 being stipend for only 19 students
whose names she said had
been omitted by the computer. The evidence of P.W.2 that Exh A6 had
been altered after he had authorise
it for payment was, to a certain
degree supported by the fact that the amount of M15,200.00 therein
reflected appeared to have
alterations. I consider it incredible that
a senior officer in the position of P.W.2 would falsely implicate the
accused in a matter
of this nature. I would accept as the truth,
therefore, the story of P.W.2 and reject as false the accused's
version on this point.

The
accused conceded that, as a result of payment vouchers, Exh A, A2,
A3, A4, A5 and A6 the corresponding cheques Exh F, F1, F2,
F3, F4 and
F5 payable to "Director NTTC (M.A. Mokokoane)" were issued
by the Treasury department. The amount reflected
on each of these
cheques was M15,200.00. She took the cheques, went to the Bank,
endorsed and cashed them. She returned to NTTC
where she handed the
amounts of M15,200 to P.W.4 who, however, denied

41

that the
accused ever gave her the amounts of M15,200 in cash, as alleged.

It is
significant that although she claimed to have handed these huge
amounts of cash to P.W.4 the accused made no record of this
nor,
indeed, did she make a follow up to ascertain that the money had
reached the office of the co-ordinator (PW.3). I find it
simply
unbelievable that the accused, who was the Accountant at NTTC, could
have handed those large amounts of cash to P,W.4, the
accounts clerk,
as she claimed she did, without keeping a record of any sort
whatsoever that she had done so. I am inclined to
reject as false the
accused's story that she handed the amounts to P.W.4 and accept as
the truth the version of the latter that
she did not.

Considering
the evidence in its entirety I am satisfied that in 1991, the second
year students of NTTC proceeded for their teaching
practice at
various sites throughout the country. The students were altogether
161 in number. During the teaching practice period,
viz. from July to
December, 1991, each student was to be paid monthly stipend. Of the
161 students 153 were duly paid their stipend
in the form of cheques
issued in their individual names by the Treasury Department. In order
to obtain funds with which to pay
stipend to the remaining eight (8)

42

students,
payment vouchers, Exh A1, was admittedly prepared and presented to
the Treasury department by P.W.4. On the basis of Exh
A1, the
Treasury department did issue a cheque to the tune of M640 which was
cashed by P.W.4. Although the accused denied the evidence
of P.W.4
that after cashing the cheque, the latter handed the money to her, it
was not really disputed that the amount of M640
was eventually paid
to the eight (8) students as their stipend for the month of July,
1991. Consequently no criminal charge was
brought against the accused
in connection with the amount of M640 and rightly so, in my opinion.

For the
months of August to December, 1991, there were still no cheques
issued in the individual names of the eight (8) students
by the
Treasury department. Nor were any payment vouchers prepared and
presented to the Treasury department for the release of
funds with
which to pay their monthly stipend. The eight (8) students were,
however, admittedly paid their stipend in cash for
the months of
August to December, 1991. It is not clear from the evidence where the
cash money with which the eight (8) students
were paid their stipend
for the months of August to December, 1991 came from. Be that as it
may, the end result is that all the
NTTC students who were doing
their teaching practice in 1991 eventually received their stipend
either in the form of cheques issued
in their

43

individual
names by the Treasury department or cash.

Notwithstanding
the fact that the students were duly paid their monthly stipend
either by cheques issued in their individual names
by the Treasury
department or in cash for the duration of the teaching practice
period, it is common cause that payment vouchers,
Exh A, Exh A2, Exh
A3, Exh A4, Exh A5 and Exh A6, in the amounts of M15,200 each, were
prepared and presented to the Treasury department
in July, August,
September, October, November and December, 1991, respectively. The
payment vouchers purported to be for the release
of funds to pay
stipend to the students who were serving their teaching practice in
1991. Acting on Exh A, Exh A2, Exh A3, Exh
A4, Exh A5 and Exh A6 the
Treasury department issued cheques which were handed in as Exh F, Exh
F1, Exh F2, Exh F3, Exh F4 and
Exh F5. Each of the cheques was to the
tune of M15,200. The accused admittedly went to the Bank, cashed all
the six (6) cheques,
took possession of the cash money and returned
to NTTC. As it has already been pointed out earlier, according to
her, on her return
to NTTC the accused handed the money to P.W.4, a
fact which was, however, denied by the latter. For reasons already
stated, I have
rejected as false the story of the accused and
accepted as the truth P.W.4's version in this regard.

The
salient question that immediately arises for the determination of the
court is whether or not when she caused Exh A, A2, A3,
A4, A5 and A6
to be presented to the Treasury department, cashed Exh F, F1, F2, F3,
F4 and F5 and took the cash money, purportedly
for payment of stipend
to the students, the accused was aware of the fact that the students
were already being paid their monthly
stipend by cheques issued in
their individual names by the Treasury department and they were not,
therefore, entitled to the money.

The
accused did not dispute that when the students served their teaching
practice in 1990 she was already the accountant at NTTC.
She knew,
therefore, that the practice was to pay the stipend of students by
cheques issued in their individual names by the Treasury
department.
According to her, in 1991, the accused agreed with the suggestion of
P.W.4 that the stipend be paid in cash rather
than cheques, a fact
which was, however denied by the latter.

It is,
perhaps, worth mentioning in this regard that in the course of their
evidence, P.W.2 and P.W.5 who were the Director and
the Deputy
Director, respectively, at NTTC in 1991, told the court that to their
knowledge students serving teaching practice had
always been paid
stipend by cheques issued in their

45

individual
names by the Treasury department. They were not aware, therefore, of
the agreement to change the system of paying stipend
to students as
alleged by the accused.

I find it
most unlikely that P.W. 4 and the accused could have effected a
change of the mode of paying stipend to students, in the
manner the
latter wishes the court to believe, without notifying the most senior
officials at NTTC, viz. P.W.2 and P.W.5. In my
view the truth of the
matter is that no such change had ever been effect and in her denial
the accused is simply not being honest
with this court.

In her
evidence, P.W. 3 told the court that whenever she went to collect
stipend money from her office in 1991, the accused used
to instruct
P.W.4 to serve her and at the same time hand to her (P.W.4) an
envelop containing cash amount sufficient to pay the
eight (8)
students who were not paid by cheques issued in the individual names
of students by the Treasury department. P.W.4 always
complied and
went to the office cabinet from where she brought cheques that had
been issued in the individual names of the students
by the Treasury
department. Before taking the money from the office of the accused
both the cheques and the cash contained in the
envelop were checked
against the

46

register,
Exh B, by P.W.4 and P.W.3 in the presence of the accused herself. The
evidence of P.W.3 in that regard was corroborated
by P.W.4, It is,
indeed unthinkable that the accused who was the accountant and,
therefore, the person in-charge of the accounts
section at the NTTC
could have been unaware of the fact that cheques issued in the
individual names of the students by the Treasury
department were
received by her office for payments of stipend to students during the
whole teaching practice period viz from July
to December, 1991. I
consider it reasonable to accept as the truth the evidence of P.W.3
corroborated by P.W.4 and reject as false
the accused's
uncorroborated denial on this point.

It is to
be remembered that in his evidence, P.W.2 told the court that when in
December, 1991 he found Exh A6 placed in his tray
for authorization
he was surprised that contrary to the normal practice of paying
stipend by cheques issued, in the individual
names of students, by
the Treasury department he was required to sign a payment vouchers
for the release of funds with which 19
students, purportedly serving
teaching practice, would be paid their stipend. Consequently P.W.2
summoned the accused to his office
for a satisfactory explanation
before the vouchers could be authorised for payment. In reply the
accused explained that the computer
had erroneously omitted

47

the names
of the affected students who had not, therefore, received their
stipend cheques. In the circumstances, it was proper for
the payment
vouchers, Exh A6, to be prepared for the release of funds with which
to pay the affected students.

For
reasons stated earlier, I have found the evidence of P.W.2 to be the
truth and rejected as false the version of the accused
on this point.

From the
foregoing, it seems to me the accused was aware that at the time the
students of NTTC were serving teaching practice in
1991 the stipend
was paid by cheques issued in their individual names by the Treasury
department. The question I have earlier posted,
viz. whether or not
when she caused Exh A, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 to be presented to the
Treasury department, cashed the cheques,
Exh F, F1, F2, F3, F4 and F5
and took the cash money, purportedly for payment of stipend to the
students, the accused was aware
of the fact that the students were
already being paid their monthly stipend by cheques, issued in their
individual names by the
Treasury department and were, therefore, not
entitled to the money, must in my finding, be answered in the
affirmative.

Assuming
the correctness of my finding, it must

48

be
accepted that by causing Exh A, A2, A3, A4, AS and A6 to be presented
to the Treasury department, in the manner she did, the
accused
clearly committed a misrepresentation. On the basis of that
misrepresentation she obtained from the Treasury department,
the
amount of money reflected on the six (6) counts against which she now
stands charged.

In her
evidence, the accused told the court that after she had obtained it,
she handed all the money to P.W.4, a fact which was,
however, denied
by the latter. For reasons stated earlier in this judgment, I have
rejected as false the story of the accused and
accepted as the truth
P.W.4's version on this point. The question that immediately arises
is whether or not in taking the amounts
of money reflected in the six
(6) counts, in the manner she did, the accused did so with the
intention to deprive the owner thereof,
viz. the Treasury department
or Lesotho Government, permanently of its property. In her own words,
the accused testified that she
did not know what had become of the
money which was no longer in her possession. Assuming the correctness
of her evidence, it seems
to me reasonable to infer that in taking
the money, in the manner she did, the accused had intention to
deprive the owner thereof
permanently.

49

It was
common cause that some students were paid shortfalls, owed to them,
in cash. From August to December, 1991, the stipend of
eight (8) of
the students was also paid in cash. It was suggested, in argument,
that the cash used to make good the shortfalls
and pay the stipend of
the eight (8) students was part of the amounts of M15,200 which the
accused admittedly obtained from the
Treasury department by means of
Exh A, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6. If part of the money was used to make
good the shortfalls and pay
stipend to eight (6) of the students, the
accused could not, therefore, be properly convicted of theft of all
the amounts of M15,200
reflected in each of the six (6) counts.

In my
finding, there was no evidence that the cash used to make good the
shortfalls and pay stipend to the eight (8) students was
part of the
money that the accused had obtained from the Treasury department by
means of Exh A, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6. Indeed,
in her own evidence,
the accused testified that she did not know what had become of that
money. That being so, the suggestion that
the cash used to make good
the shortfalls and pay the stipend of the eight (8) students was part
of the money that the accused
had obtained from the treasury
department by means of Exh A. A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 was pure
speculation on which

50

the court
could not properly base its decision.

In the
result, I come to the conclusion that considered as a whole, the
prosecution evidence has established beyond a reasonable
doubt the
commission of the offences against which the accused stands charged.
I accordingly find her guilty as charged on all
the six (6) counts.

SENTENCE

Having
convicted the accused person, it now remains for the court to
determine the punishment that will be appropriate for her in
the
circumstances. In mitigation of the punishment, the court has been
invited to consider a number of factors, viz. that the accused
has no
record of previous convictions and she is, therefore, a first
offender. Counsel for the defence has, on behalf of the accused

person, referred the court to a number of personal factors to be
considered in mitigation of the sentence. He has tabulated them
so
well that there is no need for me to go over them again save to say
they are all factors that can, properly be taken into account
in
determining what punishment is appropriate for the accused person in
the circumstances of this case.

51

I also
take into account the fact that when she took over as accountant at
NTTC, the accused found in existence the system of signing,
in blank,
payment vouchers forms, which system was, for obvious reasons, open
to all sorts of abuse. Such system was, in my view,
bound to present
upon the accused person a great temptation to steal and should never
have been allowed to exist.

I am not
prepared , however, to turn a blind eye on the seriousness of the
offences with which the accused person has been convicted.
Lesotho is
a poor country in which many people find it difficult to get
employment. The accused is one of the few lucky persons
to have been
given employment. In the course of her employment she was given a
position of trust. She betrayed her employers by
making a complete
misuse of that position. The courts' warnings that a diem view will
be taken of people who think they can steal
Government money, with
impunity, seem to be going unheeded. There is, therefore, the need to
impose a sentence that will deter
the accused and people of her mind
from a repetition of this sort of a thing.

52

The
following punishment will, in my view, meet the justice of the case
and the accused is accordingly sentenced:-

Count I : Six (6) years imprisonment

Count II : Six (6) years imprisonment

Count III : Six (6) years imprisonment .

Count IV : Six (6) years imprisonment

Count V : Six (6) years imprisonment

Count VI : Six (6) years imprisonment

In view
of the factors that have been taken into account in mitigation of the
accused's punishment, the sentences will, however,
run concurrently.

Both my
assessors agree.

B. K.
MOLAI

JUDGE

13thFebruary,1995.

For Crown
: Mr. Lenono

For
Defence: Mr. Pheko.