Infanticide: defence u-turns

Staff Writer
PATRICIA EDWIN | Wednesday June 12, 2013 00:00

Keabetswe Majuta of Elijah Attorneys is defending Oreneile Morokotso on a charge of infanticide after she allegedly caused the death of her newly born baby on October 4, 2011 in Maun when she was 17-years old.Initially, the accused and her attorney agreed to plead guilty to the charge of infanticide, which was substituted from a charge of murder but in the process of verifying the facts, the case proved more complicated because the facts did not show what Morokotso did to cause the death of her baby.

The lawyer said that they would not be proceeding with the plea of guilty, because there was evidence that needed to be clarified by the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, and other witnesses.High Court Judge Zibani Makhwade had insisted that the facts needed to show how the accused (Morokotso) killed her newborn baby, as stated on the charge sheet, and the summary of facts and proceeded to adjourn the matter.After the short adjournment, state counsel Thapelo Buang said that he had consulted with defence counsel and they had learnt that Morokotso did not actually throw the baby down the pit latrine and as such would need some time to go and re-consider if they are charging her differently or proceeding to trial instead.

'After further consultations with counsel's client we have learnt that she did not actually throw the baby down the pit latrine as she says that the baby just came out as she sat on the toilet,' he said.He said that the facts as put before the court also did not disclose that fact. After the reading of facts, Makhwade expressed his concerns about the way the facts were written.'It says that the baby had been thrown into the pit latrine but it does not say by who and then continues at the end to say that the accused person wilfully caused the death of the newly born baby.What did she do to cause the death?' asked the judge.

He further pointed out that the post-mortem report showed that the baby died due to cord placental haemorrhage and wanted to know what that meant. 'I need clarification on these issues,' he said.Makhwade said that it was a good thing the state had changed position because there were too many questions in the summary of facts that needed to be addressed.The case has been set for status hearing in early August and tentatively for trial on August 26 depending on what the state will have decided.