Makheta and Others v R; Phumane v Registrar of the Court of Appeal and Others (C OF A (CIV) 2/2009; C OF A (CRI) 9/2000) [2009] LSCA 19 (23 October 2009)

Makheta and Others v R; Phumane v Registrar of the Court of Appeal and Others (C OF A (CIV) 2/2009; C OF A (CRI) 9/2000) [2009] LSCA 19 (23 October 2009)

The appellants' conduct, including armed gatherings, defiance of orders, seizure of police headquarters, and installation of new police leadership, constituted sedition and subversion as defined by law. The failure to provide a full record was deplorable but did not prejudice the appellants' right to appeal, as a limited record was ultimately accepted and used without objection. The High Court had jurisdiction to try the offences.

Citation
[2009] LSCA 19
Parties
1st Appellant: Maopela Makhetha; 2nd Appellant: Moeletsi Jane; 3rd Appellant / Applicant: Mojalefa Moses Phumane; Respondent: Rex; 1st Respondent (civ): Registrar of the Court of Appeal; 2nd Respondent (civ): Director of Public Prosecutions; 3rd Respondent (civ): Minister of Justice, Human Rights, Rehabilitation, Law & Constitutional Affairs; 4th Respondent (civ): Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Case Number
C OF A (CIV) 2/2009 ; C OF A (CRI) 9/2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Civil Application / Judgment on Appeal and Application
Outcome
Appeals and application dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.
Legal Topics
Sedition, Subversion, Right to Appeal, Preparation of Record, Jurisdiction, Police Law
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Sedition Subversion Right to Appeal Preparation of Record Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maopela Makhetha

1st Appellant

Moeletsi Jane

2nd Appellant

Mojalefa Moses Phumane

3rd Appellant / Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Registrar of the Court of Appeal

1st Respondent (civ)

Director of Public Prosecutions

2nd Respondent (civ)

Minister of Justice, Human Rights, Rehabilitation, Law & Constitutional Affairs

3rd Respondent (civ)

Attorney General

4th Respondent (civ)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Civil Application / Judgment on Appeal and Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the appellants constituted sedition or subversion under the Internal Security (General) Act 24 of 1984
  2. 2 Whether the failure to provide a record of proceedings justified setting aside the conviction and sentence
  3. 3 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' conduct, including armed gatherings, defiance of orders, seizure of police headquarters, and installation of new police leadership, constituted sedition and subversion as defined by law. The failure to provide a full record was deplorable but did not prejudice the appellants' right to appeal, as a limited record was ultimately accepted and used without objection. The High Court had jurisdiction to try the offences.

Court Disposition

Appeals and application dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The application in C of A (CIV) 2/2009 is dismissed.
  • The appeals of all three appellants in C of A (CRI) 9/2000 are dismissed and their convictions and sentences are confirmed.