Victim named his killer from deathbed 

–15 years later, dying declarations helps nail murderer despite no eyewitness, murder weapon

Kabelo Masoabi

THE High Court has convicted Sekhompa Lekhotla of the murder of then 19-year-old herd boy Limpho Jopi, relying heavily on the victim’s dying identification of his killer despite police never recovering the murder weapon and there being no eyewitness to the shooting.

Acting Justice ’Manapo Motebele found that the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lekhotla (now 35) shot Mr Jopi at Ha Maieane, Malibamats’o, Leribe, on the night of 29 July 2011.

The 15-year-old case turned on statements Mr Jopi made before his death, his description and identification of his attacker, two spent cartridges recovered from the scene, medical evidence and contradictory accounts allegedly given by Mr Lekhotla.

Mr Jopi, who worked as a herd boy for a man identified only as Mokete, was confronted by Mr Lekhotla and two other men, according to evidence presented in court.

Mr Lekhotla (then aged 20) allegedly pointed a firearm at him and fired twice. The first shot missed but the second struck Mr Jopi around the hip, causing severe bleeding.

The gravely wounded Mr Jopi remained inside the house for much of the night, repeatedly asking to be taken to hospital. He was eventually taken for treatment but died the following day.

A post-mortem concluded that he died from excessive blood loss caused by the gunshot wound.

Victim identifies attacker

Mr Jopi could never testify at trial, but statements he made before his death became crucial to the prosecution.

The court found that he was conscious of his condition and believed death was imminent when he identified his attacker. There was no evidence that his injuries had impaired his ability to understand or recall what had happened.

Justice Motebele consequently admitted his statements as dying declarations.

Mr Jopi had described his assailant as wearing white gumboots and a blue blanket.

That description became significant when Mr Lekhotla was brought before village chief Ntheka Lehoere for questioning. Evidence before the court was that he was wearing clothing matching Mr Jopi’s description.

The court found the identification particularly compelling because Mr Jopi had described the clothing before Mr Lekhotla was brought before him and subsequently identified him again.

Contradictory versions

Mr Lekhotla denied killing Mr Jopi, maintaining that they were friends and he had no reason to harm him.

He also raised an alibi, claiming he had spent the entire night with his mother and could therefore not have been at the murder scene.

But the investigating officer testified that Mr Lekhotla had earlier given police a markedly different version.

In an informal statement, he allegedly admitted being present when Mr Jopi was shot but claimed the firearm accidentally discharged while he was examining it.

He allegedly said the weapon belonged to a man known only as “Reverse”, who was present with another unidentified man.

Police could neither establish Reverse’s identity nor find anyone to corroborate that account.

Justice Motebele found the contradictory versions damaging, questioning why Mr Lekhotla would place himself at the scene in one account while later claiming he had spent the entire night with his mother.

His alibi was further weakened by his failure to call his mother to corroborate it.

No gun, no eyewitness

Defence lawyer Advocate Bolane Qothelo argued that the Crown had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because no firearm was recovered and nobody had witnessed the shooting.

He also challenged the reliability of Mr Jopi’s dying declarations, arguing that the witnesses who repeated them in court had not themselves witnessed the shooting and questioning whether a badly wounded man who had been bleeding for hours could reliably identify his attacker.

Justice Motebele rejected the arguments.

She held that failure to recover the firearm was not fatal where the remaining evidence, considered cumulatively, established Mr Lekhotla’s involvement.

Two spent cartridges recovered from the scene corroborated Mr Jopi’s account that two shots had been fired, while medical evidence independently established that he died from a gunshot wound.

The court found that the evidence formed a coherent chain pointing to Mr Lekhotla: the dying declarations, identification of the attacker and his clothing, the matching clothes allegedly worn by Mr Lekhotla, spent cartridges, medical findings and Mr Lekhotla’s conflicting accounts.

Murder, not accident

The court also rejected the claim contained in Mr Lekhotla’s alleged informal statement that the shooting was accidental.

Justice Motebele found that after the first shot missed Mr Jopi, a second shot was deliberately fired and struck him.

Given the inherently lethal nature of a firearm, the court held that Mr Lekhotla must have foreseen the possibility that his conduct could cause death but proceeded regardless.

He had therefore acted with dolus eventualis and was guilty of murder.

Mr Lekhotla’s bail was revoked and he was remanded in custody pending sentencing.

The court stressed that his decision not to testify did not relieve the Crown of its obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the prosecution had nevertheless discharged that burden.

The parties were ordered to file submissions on mitigating and aggravating circumstances ahead of sentencing on 31 August 2026.

The post Victim named his killer from deathbed  appeared first on Lesotho Times.