DCEC versus MEDIA: The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) this week slapped News Company Botswana, publishers of The Botswana Gazette with a search warrant in a development that rocked the media industry and invited widespread criticism of the DCEC. The Publisher, Shike Olsen and his Editor and Reporter were interrogated by the DCEC offi cials while their lawyer was briefl y jailed at Mogoditshane Police Station. Read full account on Page 21 as we zoom into the DCEC Act.
The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) had a run in with a midweek publication, The Botswana Gazette, this week following publication of a story alleging collusion and corruption. The DCEC had obtained a search warrant against the News Company Botswana premises but it encountered challenges in executing the warrant because lawyers representing the organisation raised objections bordering on the legality of the search warrant.
The DCEC has also in the recent past praised the media for its work in exposing corruption, declaring that they are friends with media. But this week the civility of the corruption busting organisation was all gone as it flexed its muscles against The Botswana Gazette, an episode that led to the temporary jailing of Gazette lawyer Joao Salbany and the arrest of the publication’s Managing Editor, Shike Olsen; Deputy Editor, Lawrence Seretse; and reporter, Innocent Selatlhwa.
Many commentators viewed the development as harassment of the media and feared for the worst in so far as Media Freedom is concerned. MISA Botswana voiced out, labelling the decision by the DCEC an assault on Media Freedom; Botswana Congress Party (BCP) publicity secretary, Taolo Lucas complained about the section 44 of the DCEC Act which he labelled as draconian and going against the spirit of the Botswana Constitution; while Dr Phenyo Butale of the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) had a go at a host of legislations which he said were not friendly to the media.
He said what the DCEC was doing was harassment of the media and a calculated effort to muzzle the press. The Law Society of Botswana released a statement rebuking the arrest of one of their members, Salbany and “an apparent muzzling of the media”.
LSB wrote, “… the arrest of an attorney during the discharge of his duties is an affront to the Constitution and the very basic tenets of Democracy and the Rule of Law. The arrest runs afoul of enshrined Constitutional rights of the Gazette Newspaper and the Journalist to legal representation and to adequately prepare a defence and similarly an affront to the attorney’s Constitutional rights to protect the rights of his clients.
According to the LSB, the arrest brings once again into sharp focus the culture of impunity that the Society alluded to at the Opening of the Legal Year in 2015. It further brings into question the country’s soft-spoken credentials on the Rule of Law.
Salbany, of the Law firm Bayford and Associates was arrested and detained at Mogoditshane Police Station supposedly on a charge of obstructing the officers in their investigations. According to the DCEC Act, the offence carries a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine not exceeding P10 000, or to both.
This week’s raid by the DCEC further brought into sharp focus the law that set up the organization. A closer look at the Act demonstrates that the Director General of the DCEC wields a lot of power which when unleashed could leave a lot of ash on the ground.
A reading of the Act further explains why she (Director General) searched the News Company Botswana premises. Unoda Mack, a prominent lawyer who had accompanied Duma Boko to rescue Salbany intimated that the search warrant was valid, but the DCEC officers could have avoided the drama by explaining their mission. As things stand, the newspaper has done nothing wrong, the DCEC only felt that there could be evidence of a case they are working on at the premises.
After interrogating the journalists in the presence of attorneys Kabo Motswagole, Boko and Mack, the DCEC went ahead and searched the News Company Botswana premises and confiscated a computer.
Below we reproduce some sections that give the DCEC Director General powers of search and arrest, as well as subsequent prosecute:
13. SEARCH WITH WARRANTS (1) If it appears to the Directorate that there is reasonable cause to believe that there is in any premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle anything which is or contains evidence of the commission of any offence under Part IV, the Director or any officer of the Directorate may make an application on oath to a magistrate for a warrant to search such premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle.
(2) If a magistrate to whom an application is made under subsection (1) is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is in the premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle referred to in subsection (1) anything which is or contains evidence of the commission of any of the offences referred to in Part IV, he may by warrant direct the Director, or any officer authorised by him under section 7(1)(a), to enter and search such premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle and seize and detain anything which the Director, or the officer authorised by the Director, has reason to believe to be or to contain evidence of any of the offences referred to in Part IV.
14. SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT IN CERTAIN CASES Whenever the Director, or an officer authorised by him under section 7(1)(a), has reasonable cause to believe that there is in any premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle any article or document which is evidence of the commission of an offence, or in respect of which an offence has been, is being, or about to be committed, under Part IV, is being conveyed, or is concealed or contained in any package in the premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle, for the purpose of being conveyed, then and in any such case, if the Director or the officer authorised by him under section 7(1) considers that the special exigencies of the case so require, he may without a warrant enter the premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle, and search, seize and detain such article, document or package.
15. EXERCISE OF POWERS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE (1) In the exercise of the powers of search, seizure and detention under section 13(2) or 14, the Director or any other officer of the Directorate may use such reasonable force as is Exercise of powers of search and seizure
(1) In the exercise of the powers of search, seizure and detention under section 13(2) or 14, the Director or any other officer of the Directorate may use such reasonable force as is necessary in the circumstances, and may be accompanied or assisted by such other persons as he deems necessary to assist him to enter into or upon any premises, or upon any vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle, as the case may be.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 7, 13 and 14, the Director, or any other officer of the Directorate shall not have access to any books, records, returns, reports or other documents, or data stored electronically, or to enter upon any premises, place, vessel, boat, aircraft or other vehicle if in the opinion of the President in writing such access or entry is likely to prejudice national security.
18. RESISTING OR OBSTRUCTING OFFICERS (1) Any person who resists or obstructs an officer in the execution of his duty shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person guilty of an offence under this section or section 7(2) or 8(2) shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine not exceeding P10 000, or to both.
44. PROHIBITION OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to any person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed by him under this Act the fact that he is subject to such an investigation or any details of such investigation, or publishes or discloses to any other person either the identity of any person who is the subject of such an investigation or any details of such an investigation, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding P2 000, or to both.
New details about a suspected Motswana poacher arrested in Namibian and his accomplice who is on the run were revealed when the suspect appeared in court this week.
The Motswana Citizen who was shot and wounded by Namibia’s anti poaching unit is facing criminal charges under criminal case number (CR NO 10/06/2022) which was registered at the Divundu Police Station in the Mukwe constituency of the Kavango East Region on 10 June 2022.
It is alleged that a patrol team laid an ambush after discovering a giraffe’s fresh carcass in a snare wire and hanging biltong. According to the Charge Sheet, the suspect Djeke Dihutu, aged 40 years, is charged with contravening and transgressions of Nature Conservation Ordinance andcontravening Immigration Act 07 in Mahango Wildlife Core Area, Bwabwata National Park. Dihutu’s first court appearance was on the 17th of June 2022, Rundu and it was postponed to the 07 July 2022. He is currently hospitalized in hospital under Police Guards.
Commenting on this latest development, the Namibian Lives Matter Movement National Chairperson Sinvula Mudabeti applauded the Namibian Anti Poaching Unit for its compliance with what it called the universal instrument on the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 34/169.
“We are aware that the duties of the police carry a great deal of risk, but our police has shown that they have a moral calling and obligation to protect even foreigners suspected of serious crimes on Namibian soil,” said Mudabeti.
According to him, whereas the Botswana Police Service, the Botswana Defence Force (BDF) and Directorate of Intelligence Service (DIS) have “very low moral ethics, integrity, accountability and honesty, the Namibian security agencies has shown very high levels of ethical leadership in the discharge of their duties even under duress.”
He said Namibian’s anti poaching unit has exercised one very important value, that is, the use of force only when it is reasonable and necessary. Mudabeti said this is in harmony with international best practices as enshrined in Article 2 of the UN instrument on law enforcement conduct, “In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons.
Our police have protected the life of a Botswana poacher and accorded him dignity, which is very foreign to our Botswana counterparts,” he said. He said article 3 of the same instrument above, calls for Law enforcement officials to use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.
“This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of suspected offenders, no force going beyond that was used by our Police,” he said.
Furthermore, Mudabeti said, whereas the universally accepted norm of the law of proportionality ordinarily permits the use of force by law enforcement, it is to be understood that such principles of proportionality in no case should be interpreted to authorize the use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.
“Our police have used force proportional to the situation at hand. Great work indeed! Article 6 urges law enforcement officials to ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their custody and, in particular, shall take immediate action to secure medical attention whenever required,” he said.
Mudabeti said the Botswana poacher was immediately taken to hospital whereas the Nchindo brothers who were captured on Namibian soil, beaten, tortured and executed while pleading to be taken to the hospital we left to die.
“The Namibian Doctor gave evidence in court that Sinvula Munyeme’s lungs showed signs of life (during the autopsy) and that he could have survived if he was accorded immediate medical assistance in time but was left to die while BDF soldiers looked and possibly ignored his cry for help,” he said.
Mudabeti said unlike in Botswana where there are no clear separation of powers between the BDF, Botswana Police Service, Department of Intelligence and their Directorate of Public Prosecutions,” we have a system that allows for checks and balances and allows our people and foreigners who are found on the wrong side of the law to be accorded the right to a fair trial.”
He said Botswana citizens are treated with dignity when apprehended in Namibia and not assaulted, tortured and executed. “We are a civilized country that respects international law in dealing with non-Namibian criminals. The Namibian Police have not mistreated the Botswana poacher but have given him the benefit of the doubt by allowing due processes of the law to be followed,” he said.
He added that, “We are a peace loving nation that has not repaid Botswana by the evil that Botswana has done to Namibia by killing more than 37 innocent and unarmed Namibians by the trigger happy BDF.” He concluded that, “Our acts of mercy in arresting Botswana citizens should never be mistaken for cowardice.”
The government has reportedly taken a decision to terminate provision of pool housing and subsidy for civil servants as it attempts to trim the public service wage bill.
This emerges in a dispute that is currently before the Labour Office headquarters lodged by unions representing thousands of civil servants across the country. This publication understands that the decision to cease providing pool housing and rental subsidy for public officers is part of proposals that government put on the table during its negotiations with public service unions in order for it to adjust salaries.
A letter from Labour Office addressed to the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) shows that the directorate is cited as the First Respondent. The letter is titled, “Dispute lodged: Cessation of provision of pool housing and subsidy for pubic officers.”
“This serves as a notification and requirement to a mediation hearing,” the letter informed DPSM. According to the letter, the Botswana Teachers Union (BTU), Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Unions (BOSETU) Botswana Nurses Union (BONU) and Botswana Land Board &Local Authorities &Health workers Union (BLLAHW) who lodged the complaint are cited as the Applicant.
“Please come for mediation hearing. The hearing will be conducted by Mr Lebang. The hearing is scheduled for date/time 29th June 2022, 09: 00HOURS at Block 8 District Labour Office, Gaborone. Please bring all relevant documents,” reads the letter in part.
According to a document described as a proposal paper on the negotiations on salaries and other conditions of employment of public officers by the employer (government), the government did not only propose to stop providing accommodation to civil servants but also put a number of proposals on the table.
The proposal papers states that the negotiations (which have since been concluded) cover three government financial years; 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25. The government proposed an across the board salary adjustments as follows; 3% for the financial year 2022/23 effective 1st April 2022, across the board salary adjustment of 3.5% for the financial year 2023/24 effective 1st April 2023 subject to performance of the economy and across the board salary adjustment of 4% for the financial year 2024/25 effective 1st April 2024 subject to performance of the economy.
The government also proposed phasing out of retention and attractive (Scarce Skills) Allowance with a view to migration towards clean pay, renegotiate and set new timelines for all outstanding issues contained in the Collective Labour Agreement, executed by the employer and trade unions on the 27th August 2019, to ensure proper sequencing, alignment and proper implementation. The government also proposed to freeze public service recruitment for the 2022/23 financial year and withdraw the financial equivalence of P500 million attached to vacancies from Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs).
Another proposal included phasing out of commuted overtime allowance and payment of overtime in accordance with the law and review human resource policies during the financial year 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25.
The government argued that its proposals were premised on affordability and sustainability adding that it was important to underscore that the review of salaries and conditions of service for public officers was taking place at a time when there were uncertainties both in the global and domestic economies.
“Furthermore there is need to ensure that any collective labour agreement that is concluded does not breach the fiscal deficit target of 4% of GDP,” the proposal paper stated. The proposal paper further indicated that beyond salary adjustments, the Government of Botswana is of the view that a more comprehensive consideration “must be taken on the issue of remuneration in the public service by embracing principles such as total rewards compensation which involves taking a fully comprehensive and holistic approach to how our organization compensates employees for the work.”
The proposal paper also noted that, “Clearly, the increase in salaries and changes to other conditions of service which have monetary consequences will further increase the proportion of the budget taken by salaries, allowances and other monetary based conditions of services.”
“The consequential effect would be a reduction of the portion that can be used for other recurrent budget needs (e.g. maintenance of assets, consumable supplies such as medicines and books) and for development projects,” the proposal states.
Opposition Botswana Patriotic Front (BPF) National Executive Committee will in no time investigate charges party members worked with the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) membership to tip the scales in favour of the latter for Serowe Sub-council Chairmanship in exchange for deputy seat in a dramatic 11th hour gentleman’s deal, leaving the ruling party splinter under the political microscope.
In a spectacular Sub-council election membership last Thursday, the ruling BDP’s Lesedi Phuthego beat Atamelang Thaga with 14 votes to 12 for Serowe Sub-council Chairmanship coveted seat and subsequently the ruling party’s councilor Bernard Kenosi withdrew his candidacy in the final hour for the equally admired deputy chair paving the way for Solomon Dikgang of BPF, seen as long sealed ‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine’ gentleman’s agreement between the contenders.
Both parties entered the race with a tie of votes torn between 12 councillors each, translating for election race that will go down to the wire definitely. But that will not be the case as two BPF councilors shifted their allegiance to the ruling party during the first race for Chairmanship held in a secret ballot and no sooner was the election concluded then the ruling party answered back by withdrawing its candidacy for the deputy chair position to give BPF’s Dikgang the post on a silver platter unopposed.
BPF councilor Vuyo Notha confirmed the incident in an interview on Wednesday, insisting the party NEC was determined to “investigate the matter soon”. “During the race for the Chairmanship, two more BPF voted for alongside the ruling party membership. It was clear Dikgang voted alongside the BDP as immediately after the vote for Chairmanship was concluded, Kenosi withdraw his candidacy to render Dikgang unopposed as a payback,” Notha added.
As for the other vote, Makolo ward councilor will not be drawn for the identity preferring instead to say: “BPF NEC will convene all the councilors to investigate the matter soon and we will take from there.” Notha will also not be drawn to conclude may be the culprit councilors could have defected to the ruling party silently.
“If they are no longer part of us they should say so and a by-election be called,” was all he could say. As it stands now, the law forbids sitting Councilors and Parliamentarians from crossing the floor to another party as to do so will immediately invite for a new election as dictated by the law. Incumbent politicians will therefore dare not venture for the unknown with a by-election that could definitely cost their political life and certainly their full benefits.
Notha could also not be dragged to link the culprit councilors actions to BPF Serowe region Chairperson Tebo Thokweng who has silently defected to the ruling party and currently employed by the party businessman and former candidate for Serowe West Moemedi Dijeng as PRO for the highly anticipated cattle abattoir project in Serowe.
“As for Thokweng he has not resigned from the party but from the region’s chairmanship,” he said. WeekendPost investigations suggest Thokweng is the secret snipper behind the recruitment drive of the votes for the elections and is determined to tear the party dominance in Serowe and the neighbouring villages asunder including in Palapye going forward.
This publication’s investigations also show BPF’s Radisele and UDC’s Mokgware/Mogome councilors are under the radar of investigations for the votes-themselves associated with the workings and operations of Thokweng.
“NEC will definitely leave no stone unturned with their investigations to get into the bottom of the matter. Disciplinary actions will follow certainly,” Notha concluded, underscoring the need to toe the party line to set a good precedent. For the youthful councilor, the actions of his peers has set a wrong precedent which has to be dealt with seriously to deter future culprits.