WILDLEX

The accused was arraigned before the Principal Magistrate of Gaborone on a summons charging him with being found in possession of ivories without certificate of ownership.

The 6 appellants were convicted, in a magistate court, of unlawful possession of and dealing in elephant ivory and skin and leopard skin in contravention of the Wildlife and National Parks 28 of 1992.

The appellants in the court below were found to be in possession of game animal, alternatively government trophy, namely wildebeest skin, without being licenced or authorised to possess same.

The accused was convicted of hunting protected game without a licence contrary to section 14 of the Fauna Conservation Act (Cap. 38:01) (1973 Rev.). The prosecution case was that a police constable told the accused that he suspected him of unlawful hunting.

This was an appeal against the forfeiture order on the appellant’s motor vehicle as per s 75 (1) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act, 1992 (Act No. 28 of C 1992).

This a criminal appeal against the decision of the magistrate court in terms of which the appellant was convicted of contravening s 17(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act 1992 (No. 28 of 1992) and was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

The appellant was convicted for hunting game without a licence contrary to Section 15(1) of the Fauna Conservation Act as amended. The accused went out to hunt a marauding lion together with an assistant, a man named Maitane and a man named Mothero. All men held valid licences to hunt zebra.

The appellant and the other two accused persons were charged and convicted of contravening section 19 (1) and (2) (b) of the Fauna Conservation Act (Cap. 38:01) that is hunting without a licence on seven counts and also contravening section 62 (1) and (3) of the Act being the eighth count of hunting during closed season.

The court held that the accused had been charged and convicted under the wrong section 14(1) and (2)(a) of Cap. 38:01 which prohibits the hunting or capturing of protected game. The court reasoned that a hartebeeste was neither a conserved animal nor protected game under the Second Schedule Part I or Part II.