CRI/APN/152/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between
MAKHEBE RAMOKOENA APPLICANT
AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT
For applicant. Mr Khauoe For Respondent: Ms Dlagamandla
RULING
Delivered by the Honourable Mr Justice T. Monapathi
on the 3rd day of May 2000.
This was a review case on Accused's application after his conviction. In the application the Crown did not really offer any opposition. I did not allow the application on its grounds.
I did not find why the Magistrate did not, after asking the Accused to plead, ask him if he understood the charge.
Secondly, I did not find why the Magistrate did not ask the Accused whether he had a lawyer of his choice or not. That would lead to the issue of whether a subsidized representation would be sought if events led to that.
Thirdly, I did not understand why the learned Magistrate could not state that the statement in the outline of the Public Prosecutor was translated into English having
-1-
been interpreted from Sesotho language because of the two requirements which follow.
Fourthly, it is a requirement that proceedings should be rendered in a language that an accused person understands, which in all probabilities of this case was Sesotho language. This fact should find a place in the record of the initial statement of the Magistrate. If not a serious doubt arises more especially when attempt was not made to have the learned Magistrate states what the position was. In that case I would have decided in the way I would having noted that fact.
Fifthly, a magistrate is required to cause proceedings to be interpreted from Sesotho to English and vice versa. It did not appear that this was done. Hence the absence of any statement to that effect nor indication on the charge sheet that there was an interpreter. See REX VS MAFEKA CRI/T/10/95, Ramodibedi J., 31st October, 1996.
I ordered that the matter be tried de novo within 30 days from today. Accused remains remanded in custody until he may have applied to be admitted to bail. My reasons will follow. All should be brought to the attention of the Chief Magistrate and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
T. MONAPATHI JUDGE
-2-
