The Law Society of Botswana (LSB) has made it clear that it was not bluffing when it expressed its intention to challenge the appointment of Justice Brand to the court of Appeal bench along with any “secretive” appointments to the High court and court of Appeal benches. In a perhaps cleverly orchestrated and swift move, the Society served the Attorney General and the Judicial Service Commission with a statutory notice of the lawsuit, a day after LSB chairperson Lawrence Lecha made mention of the intention to challenge Brand’s appointment.
Lecha first spoke about the intention to challenge Brand’s appointment during the opening of this year’s legal year at the Gaborone High court on Tuesday this week. The following day the Society served the Attorney General and the Judicial Service Commission with the statutory notice detailing the intention of the lawsuit. The State President, Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Attorney General will be sued at the expiry of the thirty day statutory notice. “Please take notice that the above named claimant intends, at the expiry of the thirty days, to launch court proceedings against the President of the Republic of Botswana Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama (the “President” and/ or the Judicial Service Commission (“JSC) and /or the Government of the Republic of Botswana for an order in the following terms, an order reviewing and /or setting aside and declaring as unlawful, null and void the appointment of Mr Justice Frederik Daniel Jacobus (Fritz) Brand as the Judge of the court of Appeal,” the notice reads it part.
The LSB would further ask the court to make an order directing and ordering the JSC to provide and or disclose the process followed in identifying and placing before the JSC for appointment the 66 year old Brand.
Alternatively they would ask for an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the JSC to recommend him for appointment.
Around October last year, 2015, President Khama appointed Brand as the Judge of the court of Appeal. The appointment accordingly followed the recommendation by the JSC and Judge President of the Court of Appeal, Ian Kirby says Brand did not apply for the job, but was rather “invited.”
The main objection however is that Brand’s appointment was clouded by secrecy which is common in the appointment of Judges in the country.
“In making the recommendation, the JSC never placed an advert in the Botswana government Gazette and in fact did not place any notice at all requesting for interested persons to fill the vacant position aforesaid,” LSB stated.
It further stated that, although Brand had started his job, to date, it is unknown as to who exactly negotiated and approached him for appointment.
“The LSB therefore contend that the manner of appointment to such a high Judicial office in a highly secretive and clandestine manner is unlawful and goes against all known rules of transparency in a democratic dispensation and is contrary to law,” it further contended.
The LSB also intends to ask the court to declare that the current system of recommendation for appointment as carried out by the JSC lacks transparency, openness and is irregular and contrary to law and good governance.
They would therefore ask the court to direct the JSC to advertise all or any vacant positions in the court of Appeal and the High court and to conduct interviews in respect thereof before making a recommendation for any appointment of a Judge.
According to LSB Executive Secretary, Tebogo Moipolai, the decision to challenge Brand’s appointment was first made in November, 2015, but due to some tactical legal issues that required to be resolved was revisited in December and again the resolution was confirmed.
“The reasons for the challenge relate to the process of appointment. As with others at the CoA (Court of Appeal) it lacks transparency since there was no advertisement or interview. It is not known to LSB even with a member in the JSC, where and how he was approached and by who,” Moipolai explained.
The other reason for the challenge, Moipolai says, is as stated by the LSB Chairperson, Lecha in his speech, on Tuesday this week before President Khama, Attorney General and the JSC when the High court legal year of 2016 was officially opened at the Gaborone High court.
Lecha had mentioned that, over the years, since as far back as 2006, or earlier, the LSB has advocated for a change in approach to the process of appointment of Judges with very limited success.”
He said although the interpretation of the Constitution was before the court in as far as the appointment of Judges was concerned, he was disappointed that, “whilst this litigation is ongoing, the Judicial Service Commission moves on with the same process that is being challenged. We would have thought that it would be prudent to allow the courts to pronounce on the proper process to follow first, or at best on the side of caution and accept the interpretation suggested by the Society in the interim.”
At the time Lecha was speaking, a Judgment in which the society was challenging the refusal to appoint a local Attorney, Omphemetse Motumise by President Khama was yet to be issued. Khama refused to make the appointment even though Motumise was recommended by the JSC as required by law.
Lecha further added that, “an accepted principle in the dispensation of justice is that the Presiding Officers of courts must reflect the demographics of the society that those courts serve. The Society however notes that this is not the case in the High Court and especially the Court of Appeal where gender, race and age are disproportionate to the demographic position of the country.”
Gov’t reacts to Lecha’s remarks
Lecha’s remarks seemingly rubbed government officials the wrong way and the Ministry of Defence, Justice and Security in particular demanded an apology. The Ministry lamented that the speech contained racist, xenophobic and discriminatory undertones. Even the Judge President of the court of Appeal, Justice Ian Kirby was not amused and expressed the same view as the Ministry. He labelled Lecha’s remarks as “rude”.
Nonetheless the LSB has maintained that it stands by the speech and that it would not apologise.
“It needs to be stated that being a multiracial, multicultural and tolerant nation does not mean as a society we should shy away from publicly dealing with issues simply because they deal with race,” LSB retorted in a press statement that followed.
It further added that, “Any suggestion that it (speech) has racial, xenophobic and discriminatory undertones is either indicative of a serious dearth of knowledge of social sciences or simply mischievous. As said in the speech, in South Africa, the often talked about transformation of the Judiciary which is being championed by the country’s Chief Justice is based on this very same principle and the country has made great strides in that regard whilst Botswana, a much older democracy lags behind.”
Meanwhile Botswana’s Chief Justice, Maruping Dibotelo says his ideal Judiciary has to be well resourced and independent.
“I have committed what remains of my tenure as Chief Justice to ensuring that the Judiciary is properly resourced to enable it to discharge its constitutional mandate,” he stated and added that while he agrees that key Stakeholders in the Justice system must in general work together towards delivery of quality justice, “it should not be interpreted as equating the Judiciary which is an arm of the State, to Departments or Institutions that fall under the Ministry of Defence, Justice and Security because to do so could undermine and cloud the independence of the Judiciary which we continue to guard jealously at all times”.
“The Judiciary is required and must be a strong, impartial, independent and accountable Institution. Independence of the Judiciary is neither an esoteric pronouncement nor a privilege for the conform of Judicial Officers but a right and a practical measure for the benefit of Citizens, in a democratic state such as ours, to ensure that courts are true and genuine arbiters of cases brought before them. Whatever a litigant is standing or position in society we are all deemed equal before the law,” Dibotelo pointed out.
Dibotelo further expressed concern at the growing number of lawsuits against the State President.
“2015 was a turbulent year for the judiciary, a year marked by a litany of litigation against His Excellency the President, The Judicial Service Commission, The Attorney General etc. The litigation not only tested the integrity, strength of our Judiciary, and our commitment to adherence to the Rule of law but on hindsight equally demonstrated public confidence on the judiciary to promptly and adequately address issues brought before it,” he stated.
However the LSB suggests that the Chief Justice “is all talk but no action” because, “there has in the last few years been an unmistakable impression that cases of national importance or significance to Government always find themselves before the same Judges or panel of Judges, be it at the court of Appeal or the High court.”
The Society stressed that the society needs to be placed on record that Forum Shopping is as deplorable as the Chief Justice said in 2014, “Any partial allocation of cases further destroys the credibility of our judiciary.”
Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) leadership has indicated that the party is not worried about the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by opposition parties to support each other in the upcoming bye-elections.
Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC), which comprise three opposition parties; Botswana National Front (BNF), Botswana People’s Party (BPP) and Botswana Congress Party (BCP), recently agreed terms with other opposition entities; Botswana Patriotic Front (BPF) and the Alliance for Progressives (AP).
The duo of AP — a splinter part of Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD) — and BPF — a splinter of the BDP— did not contest under the ambit of UDC in the 2019 general election. The two parties have a combined four seats in parliament and a combined popular vote of 74 000 from the 2019 general election.
The signing of the MoU on bye-election is seen as a giant step by the opposition to consolidate their efforts against the BDP in the 2024 general election.
Unveiling the 11 candidates that will represent the party in the bye-elections billed for 18 December 2021, BDP Chairman Slumber Tsogwane stated that the cooperation of opposition parties to gang against the ruling party is not a new development in Botswana and that BDP has always emerged top in the face of such collaboration.
Tsogwane indicated that, as per reports, opposition parties had challenges relating to the allocation of wards, which were only resolved after the intervention of the leader of UDC, Advocate Duma Boko.
“We are not frightened by opposition cooperation. It is not happening for the first time. We have tasted it before. They tried in 2019, and it did not work,” Tsogwane said buoyantly. “We still want to face them as a united block in 2024 because BDP is a giant that can only be tried by a united opposition.”
Tsogwane’s sentiments were shared by party secretary-general Mpho Balopi, who also believe that opposition cooperation is a non-starter. He said, in 2019, BDP increased its popular vote, despite BCP having joined the ranks after not partaking in the 2014 general elections. “They believed that based on 2014 numbers, the BCP joining UDC will give them power, but that was not the case,” Balopi said.
BDP increased its popular vote from 46.4 percent in the 2014 general elections to 52.6 percent in the 2019 general election. The 2014 general election was BDP’sBDP’s worst in history, with the party garnering a popular vote below 50 percent for the first time since independence. BDP also increased its seat by one in the last general elections. Meanwhile, the opposition garnered 19 seats in 2019 compared to 20 in the 2014 general election.
“They [opposition parties] have been doing so since 2011 after the formation of Botswana Movement for Democracy in 2010. It is not a question of what are we going to do as the BDP. It is about what we have done in the past,” said Balopi. Balopi, who first became party secretary-general in 2011, led the BDP to the 2014 and 2019 general elections.
Last weekend, BDP held primaries in seven wards to choose candidates to represent the party in the 18 December bye-election. Meanwhile, four wards agreed to settle for compromise candidates.
The wards are going for elections on 18 December are the following; Nkgange North Ward (Nkange), Tamasane Ward (Mmadinare), Khwee Ward (Boteti East), Tumasera-Seleka Ward (Sefhare-Ramokgonami), Ga-Molopo Ward (Goodhope-Mabule), Lorolwane Ward (Mmathethe-Molapowabojang), Moshupa East Ward, (Moshupa-Manyana), Boseja South Ward (Mochudi East), Metsimotlhabe Ward (Gabane-Mmankgodi), MotokweTsetseng Ward (Takatokwane), Lentsweletau West (Lentsweletau-Mmopane).
Following the conclusion of the MoU agreement, BNF has been allocated six wards to contest. The wards are Boseja South, Khwee, Lorolwane, Moshupa East, Motokwe and Ga-Molopo. The BNF will, however, hold primary elections in Khwee while other wards settle for compromise candidates.
BCP will contest in Tumasera-Seleka Ward, Nkange North Ward and Metsimotlhabe Ward. An agreement has been reached that Metsimotlhabe Ward, despite being allocated to BCP, will field an AP candidate to warm up opposition unity talks for the 2024 general election. AP has also been awarded Lentsweletau East Ward.
Meanwhile, the new kid in the bloc, BPF, has managed to get Tamasane Ward in Mmadinare. It was also given Lorolwane Ward on paper, but it has decided to field a BNF candidate at the ward.
A proposal by the private security companies operating in the cash business for firearm licensing, sent to government for consideration, has called on government to speedily consider licensing private security companies operating in the cash business as a panacea to the prevailing cash heists.
The companies say they do not seen why they cannot be armed because all the countries surrounding Botswana within the SADC region have a provision for armed private security. This, they say, has been the case for many years with South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho, Zambia, and Angola all having this security measure in place and in many cases, for the last three decades.
“In all of these countries, the law provides that private security companies are entitled to use firearms subject to conditions under the law. For instance, in Angola private security personnel may only use firearms provided they have undergone competency training and are also required by law to keep registry and tracking of the licenced firearms. In many of these countries, armed private security does not only include for cash operations (including cash in transit) but extends to both the alarm response and to man-guarding services (a case in point being Namibia and South Africa),” reads the proposal.
The proposal further says this situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the Botswana currency is generally stronger than all other currencies in the region making it an attraction to would-be criminals. “Additionally the fact that this currency can be exchanged in any of the countries bordering it with relative ease, makes it an even more attractive avenue,” reads the proposal.
The estimated size of the cash in transit business, according to the companies, is estimated at over BWP 120m annually with over 160 daily delivery and collections between clients, the Central bank and the security company’s cash centres and automated teller machines (ATM’s).
There are currently five security companies providing the CIT services in Botswana.Despite operating in the same security threat environment, and in many instances transporting high value consignments as the Government transfers, private security companies say they do not have the same armed escorts accorded to government consignments like cash and diamonds, as they are not licenced to carry firearms by law.
“With the advent of increased security threats (as evidenced by the number of attempted and successful heists), these businesses require the same level of security in the form of having licenced firearms in order to provide their own armed escorts to ensure that there is sufficient cover and provide a deterrent to would-be criminals. The current arrangement of using Police escorts for private security, while effective as the Police are armed and acts as a deterrent, is not sustainable both in terms of resourcing and cost,”
Explaining how government handles own cash transfers, the companies says the government enlists armed Police escorts when moving high value consignments, in particular when transferring cash from and to the Central Bank due to the high risk associated with this movement.
“This acts as a deterrent to ensure that there are no attacks on these consignments. This has proven to be an effective deterrent as criminals, knowing that the Police are armed, do not attempt to attack these transfers and to date there has not been a case reported on these despite the number of years this service has been in place,” stressed the companies in the proposal.
The companies dismissed claims that the licensing may in some ways be misused saying the government through the Arms and ammunition board has always conducted raffle draws for both shotgun and rifles for members of the public in order to access firearms licences. This, they say, has been ongoing for many years but there have not been serious incidents of misuse.
“This provides a view that where there are proper control mechanisms in the issuance of firearm licences, public safety can still be guaranteed,” they observed.
Recommendations by Private Security Companies
Private security companies with Cash businesses request to be allowed to have licenced firearms in order to establish and run their own escort services. This is the only service to access firearms to mitigate the current risk. This will be subject to, amongst other requirements.
Strict criteria to be formulated in relation to the training of the officers who will use the firearms including continuous retraining at specified intervals. Firearms register to be developed with tracking capability and auditable by the authorities at all times. Firearms are retired by the officers at the end of duty on a daily basis and issued the following working day.
There will be a requirement for psychological evaluation for officers to be issued with firearms including ongoing evaluations at various intervals. The cash businesses will need to demonstrate the number of firearm licences required in line with the size of their cash businesses; approval to be based on proportionality to the required escort service and satisfaction
The need for firearm licencing is further demonstrated by the nature of the business in that private clients invest in security companies for safe custody and transfer of their cash assets hence the security companies require to be effectively prepared to match these requirements and expectations that comes with this.
The companies proposed two models to be adopted, the first being for the provision for arming tactical teams that will provide escorts for the cash businesses. These teams will be in-house and the company is the one being licenced. The second is the provision for arming CIT crews (driver and crew man) across the cash business
The companies further warned that this has to be taken seriously because the Cash In Transit service is critical to the daily functioning of the money economy by ensuring that cash circulation is optimally maintained.
Major clients such as banks and retailers, they said, depend on this service for successfully running their businesses. “For these clients, same day value in money transfers is crucial as customer demands are increasingly high to be able to withdraw and deposit money at ATM’s without disruption and in the case of retailers deposits made are required for working capital on a daily basis. Disruption in the provision of the service, as is the case where the security of the service is affected due to armed robberies, results in the disruption to the functioning of these sectors and the associated losses incurred,” they concluded.
The Auditor General’s report for 2019/2020 shows how hundreds of orphans could not benefit from an account holding billions of Pula because officials at the Department of Social Protection under the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development slept on the job.
Also robbed of the opportunity to benefit from the programme were vulnerable children.
The report reveals that the Department had outsourced beneficiary payments to Botswana Post, Sandulela Telecom Botswana and Smartswitch Botswana (Pty Ltd). Each service provider was engaged to effect payments for specific elements of the beneficiary packages. The Department disbursed a total of P3.3 billion from 2016/2017 to 2019/2020.
“However, the Department had lost control of the key financial operations to the service providers, who had breached the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) on numerous occasions,” the report says.
The report says that a Memorandum of Understanding between the department and service providers requires engaged companies to ‘consolidate, verify and return all unclaimed payments to Client, together with a list of beneficiaries who did not claim such payments’. Such information must be submitted after every three (3) months for reconciliation.
“However, the service providers on numerous occasions contravened the terms of the agreement, as they took a substantial amount of time beyond the stipulated period to return unclaimed monies. Instances were noted where Sandulela took unduly long, even up to 21 months to submit returns to the Government,” the report says,
The report states that Sandulela held an average of P6.2 million in unclaimed cash allowances during this period, thereby denying the Government the opportunity to invest the monies elsewhere and earn interest.
Regarding the MoA, the report says that Botswana Post and Sandulela Telecom were required to open separate bank accounts to be used ‘solely for the social benefits cash allowances in the Agreement and the interest accrued in that account shall be reimbursed to the Client’. The agreement also provided that the service provider may keep the monthly unclaimed cash component for a period not exceeding three months with interest accrued thereon.
In line with their obligations, says the report, the Department credited Botswana Post and Sandulela Telecom with P2.3 billion and P371 million, respectively, for social welfare grants payroll for 2016/2017 to 2019/2020. Some of the beneficiaries did not collect their cash allowances monthly, and these had accumulated to P66 million for Botswana Post and P9 million for Sandulela Telecommunication Botswana.
“Based on the above observations, the Government could have earned interest on the unclaimed cash allowances if they had been returned as prescribed. As such, the service providers did not fully abide by the terms of the agreement,” the report says.
The report found that the agency fees for each invoice were based on the number of beneficiaries paid in a period multiplied by the rate prevailing at a specific location. It was observed that the Client did not receive reconciliation reports showing paid and unpaid allowances in time to update the Social Benefit and Reconciliation System (SOBERS) application system.
“Therefore, the credibility of the amount as calculated in the invoice could not be reasonably assured. The P47 million and P142 million agency fees paid to Sandulela and Botswana Post respectively for a period of 4 years may not be reflective of the number of beneficiaries paid,” the report says.
Retarding the Beneficiary Management Process, the report shows that the beneficiary registration system had some deficiencies, which resulted in delays in updating the monthly payroll with newly approved beneficiaries. Some beneficiaries had to wait for up to 5 years before they could receive the cash allowance, consequently defeating the programme’s key objectives.
“A total of 2 270 social grant beneficiaries who passed on from as far back as 1997/1998 were removed from the payroll in 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, which meant that some of them had remained active in the payroll for more than 20 years after their death. The Department had deposited their share of cash allowances amounting to over P17 million with the service providers, and there was no evidence of interest paid to the Client on this amount,” the report says.
In addition, the report says, cash allowance for 50 beneficiaries was claimed even though they were deceased. The audit could not rule out the misappropriation of P185 545 in payments to non-existent beneficiaries.
In terms of the Child in Need of Care (CNC) and the Community Home Based Care (CHBC) programmes, the report says, children require a special diet prescribed by a paediatrician to be enrolled. For that reason, the food parcels should include the prescribed food items only. According to the report, this proved to be easy to manipulate since the Smartswitch card did not have any restrictions established specifically for CNC.
“The Department of Social Protection (DSP) is in partnership with 9 NGOs, whose main aim is to protect the orphans and vulnerable children. The implementation of the programme includes key activities assigned to the District Councils,” says the report.
Therefore, the report says that the exchange of crucial information reports between the two parties is vital for the Client to be up-to-date with the operations to execute their mandate. The oversight role was therefore considered ineffective due to the following:
The NGOs did not provide quarterly narrative reports, financial reports and annual audited financial statements to account for transactions on their operations, which was in breach of the MoA. The Botswana National Plan of Action for Orphans and Vulnerable Children for 2010-2016 requires DSP to establish an independent body to provide oversight comprising development partners; however, this had not been done.
The DSP did not establish the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee as required by the National Monitoring & Evaluation Framework, whose mandate was inter-alia to ensure that Local Authorities effectively account for funds disbursed to them and establish whether they had been utilized for the intended purposes.
As a result, the report says the “Department had lost control of and had abdicated their responsibility and accountability for funds approximating P806 million disbursed between 2016/2017 and 2019/2020 to the NGOs and Local Authorities.”
It says that while the objectives of different classes of social grants may have been met, it is nevertheless of paramount importance that all the prescribed criteria in all the authorities are complied with for sound management of the programme.