LESOLE LE FONANISA MOSADI HOEA TERONKONG😭💔💔

Ajouté : 2026-05-28

[00:00:20]Number two did not testify.

[00:00:55]He is right to make a choice.

[00:01:09]Section 57 support the choice you made.

[00:01:25]provides that code.

[00:01:30]No person who strike the crown of the honest to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[00:02:08]So in this case, his witnesses provide an answer in his name.

[00:02:19]No, his witnesses And you must live with the consequences whether negative or positive.

[00:02:48]The following facts are not distinct from this procedure.

[00:02:58]On the night of 9th May 2014, >> your wife double cap Toyota.

[00:03:16]Toyota >> registration number 6336 >> M36 M36 >> arrived at the flam.

[00:03:33]It stopped briefly and then drove off.

[00:03:40]eventually stopping a public room next to the residence.

[00:03:56]The two accused followed and shot at several times with AK-47 rifles.

[00:04:12]Brazilian road 84 pes away from the residence of the general the occupants and were injured.

[00:04:47]suffered injuries and hospital in that place.

[00:05:16]Left arm and left leg.

[00:05:29]on having been inflicted with considerable force that threatened his life.

[00:05:51]These injuries were caused by gunshots.

[00:05:59]>> He was hospitalized for 11 days.

[00:06:06]The postmortm report describes the cause of disabled as multip injury to internal comments.

[00:06:32]The pathologist observed several wounds on the chest.

[00:06:47]on the vententral surface of the examining the vehicle. The investigating officer Peter observed about 40 bullet holes on the exterior.

[00:07:24]on from on the exterior and 59.

[00:07:37]The left black tire. The left black tire had punched.

[00:08:01]blood samples.

[00:08:05]>> Seven cartridges of 76 mm.

[00:08:16]>> Six bullet jackets.

[00:08:30]and examining the cops of December. The vis and open wound on the pelvic area.

[00:08:56]Three open wounds on the left breast.

[00:09:05]One open wound below the right breast.

[00:09:12]>> Three open wounds on the right.

[00:09:21]Open on the left of the waist.

[00:09:26]on the left of the waist.

[00:10:08]This is But the fifth But the fifth magazines were shot of bullets were shot of bullets.

[00:10:27]In that accuse number one returned 16 bullets.

[00:10:38]and accuse number two returned to it.

[00:10:46]The explanation for the missing bullets was that they were used in shooting at the vehicle.

[00:11:04]The AK47 rifles were were handed over to to the police.

[00:11:16]The investigating officer received them from superintendent.

[00:11:29]He encountered them.

[00:11:39]report was that the rifles could not be linked with the cartridges collected at the scene and inside the question that arises from The results of the ballastic examination is whether absence of a link between the cartridges.

[00:12:22]Inexorably leads to a conclusion that should inexorably lead to the conclusion that not rifles and the answer is in the negative for the following reasons.

[00:12:50]DW1 just >> testify that he's the one who is the rifles with ammunition of 30 bullets per magazine.

[00:13:19]On the morning of the 10th, both returned the rifles and the magazines.

[00:13:35]had his fifth magazine shot of some bullets.

[00:13:45]Both accused written reports in which they counted for the short as the shooting as they are shooting.

[00:14:05]This was confirmed by number one >> and and was not contested by number two in the stubborn fact is that the proper AK-47 rifles were handed over to the The failure to link the rifles in the cartridges would have been fatal to the crown case if the rifles were in no way connected.

[00:15:15]and the accused have denied using their name.

[00:15:24]>> The defenses that we from the evidence are the following.

[00:15:34]The first defense defense is of mistake.

[00:15:42]The second defense is obedience to superiors. That is the red.

[00:15:55]And the third is justified officer.

[00:16:13]In other words, just because they shot an attempt to arrest The defense force is treated in terms of section 146 constitution.

[00:16:44]Among his duties in section five of the Defense Force Act, is the maintenance of law and order and prevention of crime in carrying out this duty.

[00:17:13]Soldiers are bound to respect human rights and not result to necessary use of force that may that that may lead to loss of life.

[00:17:38]Certain part of the constitution circum circumcribes the use of force in the for circumstances.

[00:17:52]circumcision.

[00:17:56]Of course, >> the first boundary is that the the use of force can can be employed in defense of a person from violence or defense of property.

[00:18:23]The second one is in order to give effect.

[00:18:42]The third is for the purposes of suppressing insurrection of YouTube.

[00:19:12]The fourth one is in order to prevent commission of of an offense by a person.

[00:19:30]The last one is what can be used in a lawful act or war.

[00:19:46]The defense of mistake is provided for section 13 of the penal code.

[00:20:05]>> A person who does or needs to do an act and honestly help but we seek and believe in the existence of the state of affairs.

[00:20:28]is not responsible for the echo mission >> to any greater extent of the real affairs of the of the real state of affairs have been or believe them to be.

[00:20:59]Not greater.

[00:21:04]>> Section 18 of the penal code provides for the defense of superior orders.

[00:21:26]Subsection one reads a person who is placed in authority over another person committing an offense.

[00:21:50]if he or she issues orders that are clearly manifested with.

[00:22:03]The second requirement is that it shall not be a defense to a criminal charge.

[00:22:12]that the offense specified in the charge that was carried by the accused person or the superior place.

[00:22:36]Yes, it is not a defense.

[00:22:40]Section 51 of the Defense Force Act provides as follows.

[00:22:47]>> Section.

[00:22:53]>> One, any person to this act who in such manner has to show defiance of disobys any lawful command.

[00:23:15]>> No, disobys or sent to him personally, commit offense.

[00:23:31]Any person subject to this act Who whether or through neglect disobys any lawful command committed section 42 one of the evidence 42.

[00:24:16]>> Why is that?

[00:24:19]>> When any peace officer or private person authorized or assist in any person who has committed or is unreasonable suspected to having committed any of the offenses mentioned attempts to make the arrest and the person who who arrest is so attempted or and cannot be appeared and prevented from escaping by other means than by the peace officer or private person killing the person or resisting such killing shall be justified I'll tell you then I'm discussing the law I'll tell you section 52 of our constitution is identical with article 22 of the European convention of human rights 1950.

[00:25:36]In interpreting the article in Mai, the European Court of Human Rights and I hope the text of article two right as a whole demonstrates that paragraph two article 22 does not primarily define instances where it is permitted intentionally to kill an individual but describes the situations where it is permitted to use force which may result as an outcome in the deprivation of The use of force however must be no more than absolutely necessary for the achievement of one of the people is set out in so far that AB or C of that article unquote.

[00:26:22]In this respect the use of the term absolutely necessary in article two of the European convention of human rights indicates that a stricter of necessity must be employed from that normally applicable to determining whether state action is necessary society.

[00:26:46]In particular, the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the a set out in sub paragraphs 2 a and b of the article.

[00:27:00]In keeping with the importance of this provision in a democratic society, the European Court in making its assessment subject subjects deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny particularly where liberate use of force is used.

[00:27:25]take into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the state who actually administer the force but also the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the action in the European court of human rights expanded further in article two of the convention saying as the test of article 2 itself shows the use of caused by police officers may be justified in circumstances Nonetheless, article 2 does not run cut blanch. Unregulated and arbitrary action by state agents is incompatible with effective respect for human rights. This means that as well as being authorized under producing operations must be sufficiently regulated within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safety arbitrariness and use of force and even against avoidable accidents. As a state actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as planning and control of the actions under examination.

[00:28:45]Article 22 of the European Convention uses the words use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary.

[00:28:55]Section 52 of our constitution uses the words use of force to such extent as is necessary in the circumstances.

[00:29:04]The two provisions reference the test of necessity. The slight difference in the word does not render the two students of the European Court of Human Rights irrelevant to the meaning of section 52.

[00:29:17]Therefore, this court adopts these two students as a as a true exposition of the permissible limits for use of force in preventing crime or effective arrest.

[00:29:32]Section 421 of the criminal procedure and evidence act which provides for justifiable homicide was discussed by the court of appeal in the case of and others versus rights the appeal cases 2019 to 2010 350.

[00:29:53]This is what the court said in paragraph 21 and 22.

[00:30:00]Quote, "As to the action of the subseting police, the accused to take, the words cannot be apprehended and prevented from escaping by other means by killing clearly indicate that the killing has to be necessary. What the what the legisure does not expressly state is whether is whether is what is meant by reasonably necessary in brace. The court said in the course of reason in his course of reasoning that if the killing was necessary it did not matter that it might be unreasonable. However, it might about the appellet division in a majority judgment of four judges in a case deal with the that was involved in Greece said that it was clear that the section and that lawfulness only arose where no other force than killing could reasonably be applied to overcome resistance to escape here too. So it seems to me the South African position reflected in that passage correctly reflects the restor of section 52. It follows that the key in the present matter to be shown to be reasonably necessary. In the appellent reliance on section 521, it is implicit that they accepted that there had been no arrest but that the relevant appellants were attempting to make an arrest. Nevertheless, the crucial point is that unless the intended arrest knows that he sought to arrest him, leaving aside what the cause of the attempted arrest may be, it cannot be said that that he resisted seeks to escape from an attempted arrest within the meaning of unless he is resisting a lawful arrest attempt to arrest him. No force much less force can be used to try Therefore, to bring the attempt and subsequent force within the protection of section 521, the intended RS must know that an attempt is being made to arrest him. This is particularly so where the intending arrest is in civilian clothing and even more so where he's known as a civilian to the intended arrest. The latter would otherwise be entitled to regard resistance for a state as entire and to act accordingly.

[00:32:38]Section 13 of the funeral code references an act done honest but mistaken belief in the circumstances.

[00:32:47]The law is that the mistake must be a feeling and not the killing itself.

[00:32:53]called error in objective. Professor explains by positing the following scenario. Quote, what is the position if X intended to shoot Z but subsequently transpires that he took? He mistook his victim's identity and in fact sh here his mistake did not relate to whether it was a human being he was killed but to the identity of a human being. Murder is committed any time a person unlawfully and intentionally kills a human being and and not merely if a person choose another particularly human being who according to his conception of X correspondence corresponds to the person he wanted to be the victim. For this reason, X in this case is guilty of murder in his mistake about the object of this act will not exclude his intention because the mistake did not relate to an element contained in the definition of the crime.

[00:33:56]In Pistorias, the accusing that she was an intruder. He was unaware that the girlfriend had gone to the toilet.

[00:34:10]The court found him guilty of culpable homicide. It explain the principle of error in objective doesn't.

[00:34:18]On the other hand, error in objective occurs where A intending to kill B shoots and kills C whom he mistakenly believes to be B. In these circumstances, A is clearly guilty of the matter of C.

[00:34:33]His intention is directed at a specific predetermined individual although he's in error as to the ex that identity of the individual irrespective of whether the name of the individual is B or C there is the error the case of in the case of error so to speak and an unirected mess which falls upon the person it was intended to affect The error as to identity of the individual therefore is not relevant to the question of miser in revering the ver of homicide and substituting it with masualis the supreme court of appeal said and I quote this finding goes to the heart of the first question of law that is whether the principles of including the so-called error objective properly applied. In this regard, it is necessary to stress that although epipit's intention to kill must relate to the person killed, this does not mean that the tractor must know appreciate the identity of the a person who causes a bomb to explode in a crowded place will probably be ignorant of the identity of his or her but nevertheless have the intention to kill those who might die in the resultant explosion.

[00:36:02]relating to the lexicon of the lawyer.

[00:36:04]This is known as intent in the form of so-called indeterminist that is killing of an indeterminate person. It is not a form of intention apart from directives or eventualities.

[00:36:20]It is merely a lab meaning that the perpetrator's intention is directed at person or persons of unknown identity.

[00:36:32]can therefore act with dollars indeterminant simultaneously with insurance. For example, as Nema points out and as this court has recently observed, our courts have consistently had persons engaged in a work out in the course of an to be liable for matter on the basis of their active both and determined as a result. What was an issue there was not whether the seen that river might be the woman when he fired the fatal shots at the toilet door but whether there was a person behind the door who might possibly be killed by his actions. The accusing correct appreciation as to who was in the is not determinative of whether whether he had a criminal in consequently by confining assessment of to whether the accuser was seen that it was a river behind the door. The child court misdirected itself as the appropriate as a matter of common sense. At the time the file shots were fired the possibility of death of the person behind the door was clearly an obvious result and in firing not one but four such a result became even more likely.

[00:37:58]But that is exactly what the accus did.

[00:38:01]The court blessing wisdom should always be conscious of determining that because an ought to have seen a consequence he or she must have done so. But in the present case that influence is resisted. A person is far more likely to foresee the possibility of death occuring where the weapon the weapon uses a lethal firearm as in the presentation than say a gun and likely Indeed in this court council for the while not considering that the trial court had when it concluded that had not subjectively the pos of the death of the person was unable to actively support that in the light of the nature of the fire and ammunition used and the extremely limited space in which the shot fire this diff is understandable.

[00:38:57]In these circumstances, I have no doubt that in the files, the accused and therefore did that whoever was behind the toilet door might die but reconcile himself to that event and that person's life. This constituted tolerance of insurance on his part and the identity of of his victim is irrelevant to his council argued that it had to be that he must have ever was in the trial danger. But as pointed out in in the versus in state versus 1993 South African criminal reports 59 apparel division. The defense of putitive private defense implies rational but mistaken thought. Even if the accused believed that there was someone else in the toilet, his express fear that such a person was a danger to his life was not a product of any rational. The person concerned behind the door and although the accused that he had a noise which is what might be caused by the door being open, did not did not did not open. Thus, not only did he not know who was behind the door, he did not whether that person in fact constituted any threat to him in the circumstances. Although he may have he may have been anxious, it is inconceivable that a rational person would have believed that he was entitled to fire at this person with a heavy caliber firearm without taking even that most precaution of firing a warning shot which the elected not to fire as he thought the reposure might have. This conitut did not entertain an honest and genuine belief that he was acting lawful which was in no way disturbed by the by his and truthful evidence and untruthful evidence in regard to his state of mind when he fired his weapon. In order to disturb the natural influence that a person in terms of probable consequences of this action was required to establish at least a foundational effectual foundation for his other upon this did not grow. Consequently, although frightening that Jesus armed himself to if there was someone in the bathroom and whether and where and when there was he did in doing so, he must have foresee and therefore did foresee that the person he was at behind the yet open without he open fire without a rational fear that this was danger.

[00:41:56]The defense of private or self defense cannot be sustained and is no finding that he acted with dollars and causing the death of the deceased unquote.

[00:42:09]The defense of obedience superior to superiors requires that the command to do an act must be lawful and not really unlawful.

[00:42:36]and not not clear or manifest unlawful. That is the command. The command must not be must be lawful and not clearly or manifestly unlawful.

[00:43:00]This means that commanders must not issue orders that are clear manifest in comprehension of the laws of the leaders.

[00:43:24]The culture of command and control which is the cornerstone of discipline in the yields to the imperatives of the rule of law is bound to obey the rule of The test for manifest unlawfulness is objective.

[00:44:15]The reasonable man must not be so contrary to the basic ideas of war.

[00:44:43]It should be it should not be contrary to the basic ideas of love and to admit no doubt of misunderstanding.

[00:45:14]The defense will succeed.

[00:45:19]The defense of superior orders will succeed.

[00:45:28]If in carrying out the order which is theory of The soldier does not do more harm than is necessary.

[00:45:54]This is the message of section 51 of the defense force act.

[00:46:06]>> It criminalizes disobedience of lawful commands.

[00:46:14]>> It makes it an offense to disobey a lawful command.

[00:46:25]Not to disobey an unlawful command.

[00:46:35]Not to disobey.

[00:46:41]No. Which is unlawful.

[00:46:43]Let's interpret that. What I'm saying is that the commanders in the defense force cannot issue a lawful orders and junior soldiers are entitled to disobey unlawful orders issued by commanders.

[00:47:14]Now, section 51 should be read together with section 18 of the penile code that criminalizes issuance of unlawful orders and their obedience.

[00:47:39]Weaving together the threats of these two sections, it becomes crystal clear that the intention of parliament in enacting section 51 of the act and section 8 of the penal code.

[00:48:09]Parliament.

[00:48:10]The intention of parliament is to ensure that the army does not become an institution of lawlessness and criminality.

[00:48:31]and criminality under the guise of command and obedience.

[00:48:45]The law talks to lawful command and responsibility.

[00:48:55]Thus, the culture of command and control which are critical for army discipline.

[00:49:15]Does not relieve soldiers.

[00:49:19]>> Does not relieve irrespective of their hierarchy in the chain of command.

[00:49:36]of criminal responsibility for committing crimes.

[00:49:46]It is not enough for a soldier to honestly believe he is doing his duty.

[00:49:58]He issues orders to kill non combatants and civilians.

[00:50:08]>> Such a soldier believes obey such orders.

[00:50:14]A soldier must in addition be certified that the command and others are off.

[00:50:30]this dynamic of military discipline I don't think you have to >> this dynamic of military discipline and say apart from criminal responsibility is well articulated in k which is a decision of the US military US court of military military appeals said and I quote a determination that order is illegal does not of itself assign criminal responsibility to the person following the order for exam in compliance with it. A soldier taught to follow orders and special attention is given to obedience obedience to orders on the battlefield. Military effectiveness depends on obedience to others. On the other hand, a s the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automator.

[00:51:30]A soldier is a reasoning agent obliged to respond not as a machine but as a person. The law takes these factors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance with the legal orders. The ex officer body done in complency and a lawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal unless the superior's order is one which a man of ordinary service and understanding would under the circumstances known to be unlawful or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful.

[00:52:13]The test of whether the order is lawful or unlawful is objective not subjective.

[00:52:20]If it would appear to be if it appear to be to a reasonable person rather than a reasonable soldier that the order is unlawful. The soldier ought not to obey to obey and if he or she does the act is unlawful and the soldier is liable to punishment.

[00:52:44]The bombings that allegedly led to the issues of the red occurred in Masu and not beyond.

[00:53:04]that led to the issuance of the red light occurred in not outside.

[00:53:18]the whole country.

[00:53:24]This exposed the whole nation, the whole nation to the mercy of heavily armed soldiers who had to use little force on sight of any fourx4 vehicle on the road at night.

[00:53:51]This potentially brought the populace into confrontation with the army and is unacceptable.

[00:54:06]articulated by the Supreme Court the Supreme Court of India in extrajudicial execution victims association.

[00:54:19]The court said, "Therefore, merely because a person is carrying arms in a disturbed area, he does not become an enemy. There has to be something much more to brand such a person as an enemy. That a person is not a mere law breaker that can be determined only by a thorough.

[00:54:41]In cases such as such as the present, there's a greater duty of care and an equally greater necessity of of a thorough inquiry since we must not forget the alleged enemy in this case is a citizen of our country and titled to all fundamental rights including under article one of the constitution in this regard is worth reporting what the constitution does set in movement of human rights our armed forces are not trained to fight and kill our own country men and women to this We may add that ordinarily our armed forces should not be used against our countrymen and women. This court observed in another people's movement in paragraph 39 of the report that the primary task of the armed forces of the union is to defend the country in the event of war or when it is faced with external aggression.

[00:55:40]Their training and orientation is to is to defeat hostile forces. The situation of internal Involving the local population requires a different approach. Involvement of the armed forces in handling such a situation brings them confrontation in their country. Prolonged or too frequent deployment of armed forces for handling such situations is likely to generate a feeling of alienation among the people against the armed forces who by their sacrifices in the defense of the country have a place in the hearts of the people. It also has an adverse effect on the morale and discipline of the personnel of the armed forces. If members of our armed forces are deployed and and to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are enemy not only the rule of law but our democracy in great danger killing an enemy killing an enemy in co is not the only available solution and that is what the Geneva conventions and the principles of international career law tell us.

[00:56:56]Therefore, even while dealing with an enemy in coast, the rule of law would apply and if there have been excesses beyond the core of duty, those members of the armed forces who have committed the excesses which do not have a reasonable connection with the performance of the of the official duty would be would be allowed to be proceeded against. It is quite clear from the various insertions issued and which are binding under armed forces that minimum force is to be used is is to be used even against terrorists militants and insurgents. This is very much in tune with international law even in terms of war when the conventions and the principles of international humanitarian law applicable. There is absolutely no reason why an equally toned down response cannot be given by our armed forces in terms of internal services and why nobody should be held if the response is alleged to be disproportionate.

[00:58:09]You can begin to interpret number one >> testify that you saw the vehicle in a better He said the man in the vehicle arrived at the rented place and left making believe that it resembled the one which was described in the red light.

[00:58:48]The spot where the vehicle had stopped is within he said it is within the area of their duty.

[00:59:06]And he said he saw that to stop it from moving away.

[00:59:15]>> This this the assertion that he shot at the tires is false beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons.

[00:59:28]So that it does not move.

[00:59:40]One, the spot where the vehicle has stopped is in a public road 85 paces away from the from General Residents.

[01:00:02]The only car that was shot at is the left rear tire.

[01:00:13]Number three, the number of bullets holds on all sides of the vehicle belies the version that each shooters shot to immobilize it.

[01:00:34]fourthly, >> the injuries on December were on the front and back of her body.

[01:00:49]This means that the shooting was deliberately aimed at all parts of her body, including the vulnerable ones.

[01:01:06]one did not want to say anything. That's the fifth reason. You did not want to say anything when asked about the discrepancy between the number of bullets used and the number of BS.

[01:01:29]number and the number of he could not even explain the nature of danger, the nature of the danger that the vehicle Sudan Accuse number one considered under cross examination that he used force not in defensive action but in offensive action.

[01:02:29]which is to destroy, >> kill and eliminate.

[01:02:40]DW >> that is >> testify that accuse number two gave an explanation for the short fall of 10 bullets in the explanation was that he used an illegal shooting when he under cross examination DW5 testified that during order the special forces should to kill not to scare.

[01:03:39]The testimony of directly begins at number two in the three counts and I repeat the stubborn fact in justice evidence is that the special forces shoot to kill In other words, the special forces use or they operate a policy of the red alert order directed all soldiers to be on maximum alert.

[01:04:35]The Red directed all soldiers to be on maximum alert.

[01:04:49]They should be fully armed and be prepared to kill the occupants.

[01:05:03]occupants of a four 4x4 vehicle >> and police officers who would attempt to arrest general.

[01:05:18]The communication of the red alert order seems to have been done without gathering intelligence.

[01:05:37]from the registration number of the suspected vehicle and carrying in the possibility that the use of legal force might result in taking innocent lives.

[01:05:58]No, it did not it did not factor in the possibility that the use of force might result in in taking innocent lives.

[01:06:17]PW's evidence that is and that of PW1 >> is that General put the whole army under a red alert.

[01:06:39]That required the commanders to communicate down to the junior ranks.

[01:06:54]throughout the kingdom.

[01:06:58]>> The purpose of the red alert order was to respond to a situation of alleged instability.

[01:07:24]caused by two things.

[01:07:27]The first one >> were bombings on the residences of the second one was an alleged impending arrest of general by the police.

[01:07:57]The present commander testify that the redirect order has to be sanctioned by the Minister of Defense as a head of government and it is of limited duration to address the pending threat.

[01:08:33]DW30 does not remember being issued in 2014 and 2015.

[01:08:45]2015 2014 and >> although as a brigadier general >> although although he was as a general one of the advisers to general This evidence undercuts this evidence.

[01:09:13]It undercuts the legal basis of the red alert order.

[01:09:22]The red order was unwritten and communicated verbally down the chain of command.

[01:09:34]>> It was written and communicated verbally down the chain of command.

[01:09:45]He did not provide clarity.

[01:09:50]on principles and rules to to constrain the use of bral force in a manner that that justify or meet the the test of necessity.

[01:10:20]Which test requires that force, the use of force to to be proportionate to the aims of preventing crime.

[01:10:38]And we felt the arrest of three suspects These shortcomings or infirmities gave soldiers cut blanch or a license to shoot to kill.

[01:11:03]The regular order is therefore clearly unlawful and should not have been obeyed by the But of more importance is that >> the bombings the bombing of residences is pre preeminently criminal act that ought to have been dealt with by compuls himself.

[01:11:46]General should have comp what he was doing about it.

[01:12:06]Secondly, if as General was wanted by the police, he should have voluntarily presented himself.

[01:12:26]in order to avoid an arrest.

[01:12:33]What General could not do is to use soldiers to resist and even kill the police even before the law.

[01:12:52]General and the entire team of the command of the chief are not are not above the law.

[01:13:01]They operate under the constitution and the defense force act and like civilians.

[01:13:19]They are amenable to arrest by the police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminality.

[01:13:36]That is the imperative of the rule of law as said by the court of appeal in the cis and I quote >> no government >> however powerful be it this military has not However awesome is this police power indeed, however popular be it or receive support at any given point of history.

[01:14:32]And I repeat that. No government, >> however powerful be it military arsenal, however awesome is this police power in indeed however popular it support that is the support of that government.

[01:15:08]They be permitted to invade any of fundamental human rights.

[01:15:20]No, they can invade they can invade human rights unquote.

[01:15:33]As the go, >> as the saying goes, >> as the go you ever so high, >> the law is above.

[01:15:50]The law is a respector is not a respector of unity.

[01:16:03]position, status, power or might defense force act 1996 does not give soldiers and their commanders immunity from investigation.

[01:16:34]They are not immunized from investigation.

[01:16:40]>> It doesn't prevent that be arrested and be prosecuted.

[01:16:56]The red alert order was a machination of general to weaponize the special forces against protection of arrest by the police.

[01:17:26]This is totally out of character in the constitution and the rule of the army.

[01:17:37]It is also subversive of the rule of law.

[01:17:42]It is not the business of soldiers to give out orders to shield their commander from arrest by the police.

[01:17:56]Thus, the red order was clear.

[01:18:15]Section 51 of the NDF act states that their obligation that is the obligation of their accused is only to obey lawful order and lawful orders they should not.

[01:18:40]In sim in similar way, >> soldiers cannot just shoot at any vehicle that fits the description and color of one allegedly involve involving bombings.

[01:19:02]It is immaterial that the occupants of of vehicle M 633 refused to obey the instructions of the accused to switch on or off lights.

[01:19:30]A want evidence that he knew the identity of John.

[01:19:36]His evidence is that he knew Johnny and the identity. He knew the identity of the vehicle but does not explain what made him fail to recon recognize that vehicle when it arrived and left.

[01:20:07]The vehicle, as I said, was s at the spot in a public road, not the private property of the At that spot, >> we did not pose, >> you did not the present did not pose the present, danger to life, property The accused were fully aware that there were human beings in the vehicle.

[01:21:12]They pumped withers into the vehicle with the intention to destroy it and kill them.

[01:21:24]These mistake as to the identity of the enemy is irrelevant to their intention.

[01:21:51]Mr. >> to follow the vehicle to follow the vehicle while firing on the shots.

[01:22:15]His submission is that is that the reason he submitted that the reason that follow the vehicle while firing shots and eventually peppering was to stop the the occupants.

[01:22:47]who had arrived and had left the residence in defiance of soldiers instructions.

[01:23:03]There's no evidence that Jan knew or were aware that the were following the vehicle when he We were born evidence is that he heard from him that soldiers were around when she screamed that the soldier stood outside the front passenger door.

[01:23:44]No sooner she screamed, the shooting started.

[01:23:51]Clearly, clearly the shooting was not in the aim of an arrest.

[01:24:04]The bullet holes from all sides of the vehicle so that The intention was not to arrest but to kill.

[01:24:17]SDW5 said the special forces to kill special were not aware that there was an attempt to put them under arrest and fled.

[01:24:41]Thus, it cannot be said that they resisted or we were about to take flight from a lawful attempt to arrest.

[01:24:55]For what offense?

[01:24:58]But even if it be accept that they are tempted to flee, refuse to use force that is disproportionate and outside limits.

[01:25:17]The use of lethal force failed to meet the test of necessity.

[01:25:34]The test which is laid down in section 52 of section 52 of the constitution with section 421 of the also failed you fa the the car Yes, that case I referred to the US military and that test is that they should a soldier should behave like a human being not an automator.

[01:26:31]It follows that the defense the defenses of superior borders.

[01:26:46]Mistaken belief and justify the homicide.

[01:26:59]have no merit are rejected.

[01:27:07]In summary, therefore, the court makes the following findings.

[01:27:19]One, on 9th May 2014, the two fired multiple shots.

[01:27:36]vehicle registration M 6336 >> with with AK-47 rifles.

[01:27:49]When they saw short the vehicle, >> it was stationary in a public road at a distance of 85 paces from the residence and and rented at that spot.

[01:28:15]>> He did not post a clear and present danger to any life.

[01:28:28]It did not it was not a danger to any life and property.

[01:28:42]Two, at no stage were the ser aware that are being followed.

[01:29:00]when they stopped at the public road otherwise would not have arrived to pass.

[01:29:11]Three, >> the vehicle was shot from the rear, front and all sides.

[01:29:23]>> 40 bullet holes were found on the exterior part of the ve on the exterior part and 59 were formed in the interior part.

[01:29:46]Three of these tiles were intact except the left rear tire.

[01:29:58]This guard of course was not used with the aim of immobilizing the vessel but to kill and sword they sought as a vehicle not because their lives were in danger or in self-defense.

[01:30:28]But they were intent on destroying the vehicle and killing this occupants.

[01:30:37]Five.

[01:30:39]The people inside the vehicle that is and suffered injuries >> and death.

[01:30:56]Six, >> the little force was not used to protect life, defend property, prevent crime, nor to a lawful arrest.

[01:31:19]It was used to destroy the vehicle.

[01:31:25]and killing occupants for disobeying the procedure.

[01:31:37]To switch off the exterior lights and to switch on the interior lights on arrival at General in shooting with all the M to be revealed.

[01:32:10]ed injuries and death.

[01:32:17]They subjectively intended to kill them.

[01:32:34]But by the grace of God failed to kill.

[01:32:38]>> Can I stand up on the totality of the evidence?

[01:32:49]I found both guilty of the crimes of murder with murder with direct intent and attempted murder and damage to property.

[01:33:09]The verdict is enter the following verdict count one.

[01:33:18]Number one is guilty.

[01:33:25]Second is also guilty.

[01:33:28]Count number two of attempted murder.

[01:33:34]First accused is guilty.

[01:33:38]Second accus is also guilty.

[01:33:42]Count three damage to property.

[01:33:46]The first is guilty.

[01:33:50]The second is also guilty.

[01:33:53]The two are your canled automatic.

[01:34:25]What's your response?

[01:34:33]What's your response?

[01:34:42]The next is extendation.

[01:34:47]>> What do you want to do?

[01:34:54]You cannot leave now. Isn't it?

[01:34:58]>> We have to postpone this case then for extation and sentence. That's the court.

[01:35:05]>> How much time do you require to prepare?

[01:35:10]onion and we are only today I'm thinking of that at the back of my mind that's why I'm asking you how much time you want to prepare it won't be less than a month It shouldn't be less than a month, my lord.

[01:35:41]>> It can't be more than a month.

[01:35:47]>> I'll request three weeks, my lord.

[01:36:04]>> The only issue is whe Extend more than more than two weeks of the 8th of June. We are going on recess instead.

[01:36:39]I should have been done with this.

[01:37:04]Just that I want to accommodate you to make because the court rises for vacation in the court.

[01:37:25]May I request that be suitable to the court Thursday the 11th of my challenge on Thursday that's when the judicial service commission sits before that Unless of course you want to see on a Friday.

[01:37:58]>> No, not on a Friday.

[01:38:00]>> No, not that I didn't see.

[01:38:03]I had to see I was the 9th.

[01:38:12]There's a labor matter. I ask my colleague to criminal matters take precedence over civil matters.

[01:38:22]So that labor we have to give you.

[01:38:25]>> So the nation >> this this case then is postponed to the n to consider >> the court.

[01:38:52]No, it's still the case. It's still the case.

[01:39:05]9th June.

[01:39:06]>> Yes. 9th of June.

[01:39:11]is coming. Yes.

[01:39:15]June 2026.

[01:39:16]>> Thank you.

[01:39:17]>> Thank you.