Dimpho Monareng case faces potential withdrawal
The case has seen multiple court sessions, all hinging on the release of evidence from the Local Criminal Record Centre.
POLOKWANE – The court case relating to the tragic death of 15-year-old Dimpho Monareng, reportedly as a result of a drag racing incident, faces potential withdrawal if the Local Criminal Record Centre (LCRC) fails to release crucial evidence by August.
Katlego Mosoma (20), who is accused of driving the bakkie that struck Monareng in Zone 4 near Beach Front in Seshego last December, appeared in the Seshego Magistrate’s Court.
You might also want to read: Dimpho Monareng: Drag racer back in court this month
His legal counsel requested that the next hearing, set for August 2, be the final one if the investigating officer does not present the necessary evidence from the LCRC, which includes sketches, witness statements, and photographs.
Seshego police spokesperson Ali Maluleke confirmed that on December 4 at 17:45, drivers of a blue Ford SUV and a white Nissan NP200 were drag racing.
“In the process, one of the drivers hit the girl, and she died at the scene,” Maluleke stated.
The case has seen multiple court sessions, all hinging on the release of evidence from the LCRC.
The investigating officer has reported ongoing difficulties, including the responsible officer being on leave during crucial times.
You might also want to read: Expert to shed light on Seshego drag racing incident probabilities
Dimpho’s mother, Lerato Monareng, expressed deep concern over the possibility of the case being dismissed due to these delays.
Her legal representatives, MF Maloka Attorneys, have urged the Capricorn District’s control prosecutor to expedite the release of the evidence necessary for trial.
In a letter also sent to provincial police commissioner Lt Gen Thembi Hadebe, legal counsel Florah Maloka highlighted that the investigating officer admitted the LCRC was “giving the run-around about printing the photographs and sketches”.
Furthermore, the prosecutor had indicated that witness statements were missing from the case docket, despite there being sufficient witness testimony, including a key witness who observed the incident and intervened by taking the accused’s keys.
The magistrate denied the immediate application for the case’s dismissal, invoking Section 342A to investigate the reasons behind the LCRC’s delay to ensure justice is served.
However, the continued postponement raises concerns that the case might be dismissed if the evidence is not presented soon.
