After untidy skirmishes between the Botswana Unified Revenue Services (BURS) and the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) over the ‘illegal’ flying of aircrafts over Botswana skies by the leader of the main opposition party, the former has availed a checklist of temporary admission of aircraft into the Botswana skies to the party’s lawyers.
After two of the aircrafts he was using for electioneering were grounded by the BURS and his pilots interrogated and later fined P50 000 by the tax collector, UDC President Duma Boko has taken steps to distill the process. The aircrafts were landed to Boko by Waleed Helicopter Services (PTY) Ltd. Boko recently instructed the UDC, Bayford and Associates to ask for a requisite BURS checklist for purposes of temporary importation into Botswana of aircraft intended for use in election campaign.
Dick Bayford, the UDC lawyer held a meeting with BURS officials on the 8th of May 2019 attended by attorney, Aobakwe Monamo and BURS General Manager, Investigations, Compliance and Enforcement Department, Mr Kanone B Molapo. The purpose of the meeting was to push BURS officials to share a checklist with the UDC for purposes of temporarily importing aircraft for election campaign.
“We explained to your Mr Molapo that our clients are desirous of importing into the country on temporary basis a fixed wing aircraft and helicopter for election campaign purposes and none other. That upon expiry of the period of their use in Botswana, as would be advised in due course, same would be re-exported,” reads Bayford’ memo dated 9th May 2019 to BURS. Bayford further notes that “Mr Molapo has not availed us a templated checklist of the requirements sought, but has drawn our attention to relevant provisions in both the Customs Act, 2018 and the Value Added Tax Act which are applicable.”
For the avoidance of doubt and to distill a common understanding on the said provisions and the advice rendered by Mr Molapo, Bayford took liberty to share his interpretation of the two Acts in relation to temporary importation of aircrafts for purposes of an election campaign. In terms of Section 184(1) BURS shall grant a temporary admission procedure where it is possible to ensure the identification of imported goods at the time of re-export. “In our respectful view, usage of the word “shall” denotes that once the condition precedent is met (ie assurance as to identification) it is mandatory upon BURS to grant a temporary admission procedure,” writes Bayford.
The UDC lawyer also notes that Mr Molapo had drawn their attention to section 185(1) of the Act which provides that BURS may clear goods for temporary admission without a standard customs declaration if it is satisfied that goods will be subsequently re-exported. “Our instructions are that the aircraft intended for temporary admission would be subsequently re-exported. They will be kept at all material time, save when they are in use, at an officially designated customs airport in Botswana until exportation and by reason of this fact, their subsequent re-exportation is assured. Therefore we pray that they be exempted from standard customs declaration,” says Bayford.
When addressing Section 189 of the Act which deals with temporary admission with conditional relief, Bayford notes that the Customs Act, “means of transport” may be placed under temporary admission procedure with conditional relief of import duties and taxes. “As the above provision is not mandatory, but consider upon yourselves a discretion, Mr Molapo advised that clients could make a proposal on imposition of conditional relief of import duties and taxes.”
UDC, through its lawyers proposed that their aircrafts, as and when they arrive in Botswana, be placed under temporary admission procedure with conditional relief of import duties and taxes. “We respectfully submit that such an exercise of discretion would in the circumstances be apposite considering the fact that same are not to be used for any commercial purposes, but as a facility for advancing the democratic process of electioneering guaranteed under the national constitution,” explained Bayford in his letter to BURS.
Section 196 of the Customs Act indicates that the customs office may require that a means of transport for commercial use that is registered abroad be subject to a customs document and adequate guarantee. The UDC has pleaded with the BURS to apply its discretion as per the law and exempt from the provisions.
In itsv response BURS has noted that section 184 authorizes it to allows “a temporary admission procedure where it is possible to ensure the identification of imported goods at the time of re-export” or where “in view of the nature of the goods or nature of the operations to be carried out, the absence of identification measures is not likely to lead to abuse of the procedure.” The BURS through Mr Molapo notes that “BURS may clear goods for temporary admission without a standard customs declaration if it is satisfied that the goods will be subsequently re-exported.”
Molapo further observes that if temporarily admitted goods are not the subject of a carnet, BURS may require the submission of a guarantee if it is satisfied that the goods will subsequently be re-exported. “Under section 189 (1) of the Act, goods, including means of transport “may be placed under the temporary admission procedure with conditional relief of import duties and taxes.” The essence of the provision is that there will be relief from, or suspension of, the otherwise chargeable duties/taxes on the affected goods/means of transport. However BURS is given latitude to impose such conditions as it deems fit to safeguard the suspended taxes. Such condition may be the guarantee requirement introduced by section 186 of the Act,” Molapo explained to UDC lawyers.
Molapo has advised UDC that they are required to submit a guarantee worth 12% of the market value of the aircraft and upon satisfying this condition the aircraft would be temporarily admitted for a period of not more than three months. “In case of conformance to all the stipulated condition, on exportation of the goods the undertaking for the payment of the otherwise payable taxes shall be discharged; in case of failure to export within the pre-stated timeframe or violation of any of the imposed conditions, then the hitherto suspended Value Added Tax (VAT) become payable, and reckoned from the date of first importation,” further explains Molapo.
The BURS General Manager also explained that the recipient of the services rendered by the owners of the aircraft (Waleed Helicopter Services Pty Ltd) should account for the VAT payable. On the full checklist, the UDC must provide a declaration concerning the aircraft; its itinerary; the goods onboard; any passengers and crew on board; the destination of such passengers’ crew and goods; and any stores on board; valuation of the aircraft. Finally the UDC must pay a temporary deposit equivalent to applicable duties and taxes.
So far Boko has used a 2017 Augusta A109SP which is valued at US$ 5 950 000 which translates to about P50 million of which 12% translates to P6 million. But depending on their age, other models could come at a bit lower prices of just under P20 million which would require the UDC to fork out about P2 million as guarantee to the BURS and further ensure that there is no violation of the preset conditions for the temporary admission of the aircraft or face penalties including paying all tax payable.
In June 2019, a case involving the Attorney General was brought before the High Court, in which the applicant Letsweletse Motshidiemang challenged Sections 164 (a) and 167 of the Penal Code. The applicant contended that these sections are unconstitutional because they violate the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy.
The applicant argued that these sections violated his right and freedom to liberty as he was subject to abject ignominy. These laws subjected the LGBTIQ community to brutal and debasing treatment through social control and public morality. On the 1st of November 2017, the Botswana High Court further allowed Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LEGABIBO) to join the case as amicus curiae.
However, in July 2019, the respondents, in this case, i.e. the Government, filed an appeal against this iconic High Court ruling seeking re-criminalization of homosexuality. Human Rights Group has criticized this move of the Government all over the world. The appeal was heard before five judges at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday. The State was represented by Advocate Sidney Pilane, while LEGABIBO and Letsweletse Motshidiemang were represented by Tshiamo Rantao and Gosego Rockfall Lekgowe, respectively.
Non-Governmental Organizations advocating for the LGBTIQ+ community joined the two parties at the Court of Appeal during this case. They argue that the minority group should enjoy their rights, especially the right to privacy and health. Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) Chief Executive Officer, Cindy Kelemi says the issues being raised by LEGABIBO are that as individuals belonging to the LGBTIQ community, they have and must share equal rights, including the right to privacy, which also speaks to being able to involve in sexual activities, including anal sex.
“Those rights are framed within the constitution, and therefore a violation of any of those rights allow them to approach the courts and seek for redress. We do not need the law to be regulating what we do in the privacy of our homes. The law cannot determine how and when we can have sex and with who, so the law does not have any business in that context. What we are saying is that the law is violating the right to privacy,” she said on the sidelines of the decriminalization case in Gaborone on Tuesday.
The first case involving the homosexual act was the Utjiwa Kanane vs the State in 2003. Contrary to section 164(c) of the Penal Code, Kanane was charged with committing an unnatural offence and engaging in indecent practices between males, contrary to section 167. The conduct at issue involved Graham Norrie, a British tourist, and occurred in December 1994. (Norrie pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and left the country.)
Kanane pleaded not guilty, alleging that sections 164(c) and 167 both violated the constitution. The High Court ruled that these sections of the Penal Code did not violate the constitution. Kanane then appealed to the Court of Appeal. BONELA CEO recalls that in its judgment then, the High Court indicated, Batswana were not ready for homosexual acts. Twenty years later, the same courts are saying that Batswana are ready, she says.
“They gave the explicit example that shows that indeed Batswana are ready. There are policies and documents in place that accommodate people from marginalized communities and minority populations. The question now is that why is it hard now to recognize the full rights of an individual who is of the LGBTI community?” She further says intimacy is only an expression. The law that restricts homosexuality makes it hard for LGBTIQ members to express themselves in a way that affirms who they are.
“We want a situation where the law facilitates for the LGBTIQ community to be free and express themselves. The stigma that they face in communities is way too punitive. They are called names; some have been physically violated and raped at times. It shows that the law doesn’t not only prevent them from expressing themselves, it also exposes them to violence.” The law on its own, Kelemi submits, cannot change the status quo, adding that there is a need for more awareness and education on human rights and what it means for an individual to have rights.
“As it is now, it is very tough for some to do that because of a legal environment that is not enabling. We also want to see a situation where LGBTIQ+ people can access services and be confident that they are provided with non-discriminatory services. It is challenging now because health care providers, social workers and law enforcement officers believe that it is illegal to be homosexual. What we are saying is that if you have an enabling law, then that will facilitate for people to be able to express themselves, including accessing health services,” Kelemi said.
“As we are doing this advocacy work, one of the issues that we picked up is that there is lack of capacity, especially on the part of healthcare workers. We noted that when we provide services or mobilize Men who have sex with other men (MSM) to access health facilities, health care workers are not welcoming, forcing them to hideaway. We must put an end to this to allow these people the freedom that they equally deserve.”
The President, Dr Mokgweetsi Masisi, has declared as an act of corruption the attitude and practice by government officials and contractors to deliver projects outside time and budget, adding that such a practice should end as it eats away from the public coffers.
For a very long time, management problems and vast cost overruns have been the order of the day in Botswana, resulting in public frustrations. Speaking at the commissioning of the Masama/Mmamashia 100 Kilometres project this week, Masisi said: “There is a tendency in government to leave projects to drag outside their allocated completion time and budget. I want to stress that this will not be tolerated. It is an act of corruption, and I will be engaging offices on this issue,” Masisi said.
In an interview with this publication over the issue, the Director-General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC), Tymon Katholo, says, “any project that goes beyond its scope and budget raises red flags.” He continued that: “Corruption on these issues can be administrative and criminal. It may be because government officials have been negligent or been paid to be negligent by ignoring certain obligations or procedures. “This, as you may be aware has serious implications on not only of the economy but even the citizens who use these facilities or projects,” Katlholo said, adding that his agency is equally concerned.
According to the DCEC director, the selection, planning and delivery of infrastructure or projects is critical. In most cases, this is where the corruption would have occurred, leading to a troubled project. A public finance expert at the University of Botswana (UB), Emmanuel Botlhale, attributes poor project implementation to declining public accountability, lack of commitment to reforming the public sector, a decline in the commitment by state authorities and lack of a culture of professional project management.
In his research paper titled, ‘Enhancing public project implementation in Botswana during the NDP 11 period,’ Botlhale stated that successful implementation is critical in development planning. If there is poor project implementation, economic development will be stalled. Corruption is particularly relevant for large and uncommon projects where the public sector acts as a client, and experts say Megaprojects are very likely to be affected by corruption. Corruption worsens both cost and time performance and the benefits expected from such projects.
Speaking during this week’s Masama/Mmamashia pipeline commissioning, Khato Civils chairman said Africans deserve a chance because they are capable, further adding that the Africans do not have to think that only Whites and Chinese people can do mega projects. During his rule, former president Ian Khama went public to attack Chinese contractors for costing the government a move that ended up fuelling tensions between China and Botswana after Khama dispatched the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pelonomi Venson Moitoi, to China to register Botswana’s complaints with Chinese government-owned construction companies. Botswana had approached the Chinese government for help in its marathon battle with Chinese companies contracted to build, among others, the failed controversial Morupule B power plant and refurbishment of Sir Seretse Khama International Airport (SSIK).
A legal battle between former Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) legislator Samson Moyo Guma and First National Bank (FNB) over a multimillion oil refinery project intensified this week with Justice Zein Kebonang referring the matter to Court of Appeal for determination. The project belongs to Moyo Guma’s company called United Refineries which he has since placed under judicial management.
The war of words between Moyo Guma and FNB escalated after the company’s property worth millions of Pula were put up for sale in execution by the bank and scheduled to take place on 8th October. It emerges from Court papers that the bank had secured an order from the High Court to place the company’s property under the hammer.
Moyo Guma then also approached the High Court seeking among others that the public auction scheduled for 8th October 2021 be stayed. He contended that the assets that were to be sold belonged in reality to United Refineries and that as the company had been under judicial management at the time of the attachment, the intended sale in execution was unlawful.
He also sought the Court to declare that the writs of execution against the properties of guarantors and sureties of United Refineries Botswana Holdings Propriety Limited (the company) are unlawful. Moyo Guma also sought a stay of the execution against the property known as Plot 43556 in Francistown, that is, the land buildings, plant and machinery which make up the property and any all immovable or movable property belonging to the guarantors and sureties of the company pending finalization of the winding up of United Refineries.
But FNB disputed Moyo Guma’s assertions and submitted that the properties in question belonged to TEC (Pty) Ltd and not United Refiners. TEC Pty Ltd which is one of the shareholders in United Refineries is one of the sureties and co-principal debtors of a debt amounting to P24 million owed by United Refineries to FNB. FNB argued in papers that the properties belonged to TEC because it was TEC which had passed a covering mortgage bond in its favour over the property it now sought to execute.
Moyo Guma submitted that the covering mortgage bond passed in favour of FNB did not tell the full story as the property in question was in truth and fact owned by United Refineries and not TEC Pty Ltd. He maintained that the shares had been had been passed by the company in exchange for the properties in question and that the parties had always been guided by the spirt of the share agreement in dealing with each other despite delays in the change or transfer of ownership of plots 43556 and plot 43557 in Francistown.
Kebonang said it was clear to him that the two plots (43556 and 435570 belonged to United Refineries notwithstanding that TEC (Pty) Ltd had passed a mortgage bond over them in favour of FNB. “For this reason the properties were immune from attachment or sale in execution so long as the judicial management order was in place,” he said.
The background of the case is that Moyo Guma together with five other investors, namely Elffel Flats (Pty) Ltd; Mmoloki Tibe; TEC (Pty) Ltd; Profidensico (Pty) Ltd and Tiedze Bob Chapi, each bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors in respect of a debt owed by a company called United Refineries Botswana Holdings (Proprietary) Limited (the Company), to First National Bank Botswana (FNBB) (1st Respondent).
FNB had extended banking facilities to the company in the amount of P24 million which was then secured through the suretyship of Moyo Guma and other shareholders. Court records show that Moyo had on the 11th February obtained a temporary order for the appointment of a provisional judicial manager in respect of United Refineries and it was confirmed by the High Court on 24th September 2019.
In terms of the final court order by the High Court issued by Justice Tshepho Motswagole all judicial proceedings against the company, execution of all writs, summons and process were stayed and could only proceed with leave of Court. Court documents also show that First National Bank had sued the company and the sureties for the recovery of the debt owed to it and through a consent order, the bank withdrew its lawsuit against the company.
But FNB later instituted fresh proceedings against Moyo Guma and did not cite the company in its proceedings. “There is no explanation in the record as to why the Applicant was now reflected as the 1st Defendant and why the company had suddenly been removed as the 1st Defendant. There was no application either for amendment or substitution by the bank,” said Justice Kebonang.
FNB had also argued that it sought to proceed to execute against Moyo Guma and other sureties on the basis of the suretyship they signed and that by signing the suretyship agreement, Moyo and other sureties had renounced all defence available to them and could therefore be sued without first proceedings against the principal debtor (United Refineries). The question, Kebonang said, was that can FNB proceed to execute against Moyo Guma and other sureties on the basis of the suretyship contracts they signed?
“The starting point is that the Applicant (Moyo Guma) and others by binding themselves as sureties became liable for debts of the principal debtor and such liability is joint and several. He said the consequences of placing the company under judicial management means that every benefit extended to it should also extend to sureties.
“If the company is afforded more time to pay or its debt is discharged, reduced or compromised or suspended the obligation of sureties is to be likewise treated. It follows in my view that where judicial proceedings are suspended or stayed against the company, then any recourse against the sureties is similarly stayed or suspended,’ said Kebonang.
He added that “In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that so long as the company is under judicial management, the moratorium that applies to it must also apply to its sureties/guarantors and no execution of the writs should be permitted against them. Any execution would be invalid.”
“Mindful that there is judicial precedent on this point in Botswana, at least none that I am aware of, and given its significance, I consider it prudent that the Court of Appeal must provide a determinative answer to the question whether a creditor can proceed against sureties where a company is under judicial management,” said Kebonang.
Pending the determination of the Court of Appeal, he issued the following order; the execution of writs issued in favour of FNB against Moyo and other sureties/guarantors of United Refinery are hereby stayed pending the determination of the legal question referred to the Court of Appeal.