Connect with us
Advertisement

Is Khama right on the Independence of our Judiciary?

Ndulamo Anthony Morima
EAGLE WATCH

Recently, when officially opening the Judicial Conference in Mahalapye, His Excellency President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama stated that “we are a nation renowned for our peace, stability and tranquility…These precious national tenets … would not have been possible without the checks and balances of an established judicial system, which is respected by Batswana…from the Customary Courts to the Court of Appeal”.

In this article, we consider whether president Khama is right that judicial independence prevails in Botswana. We do so by considering Botswana’s respect for judicial independence in terms of the Constitution and selected case law. For the latter, we use cases that had political implications and were likely to have a bearing on judicial independence.

In addition to stating that the Executive respects the independence of the Judiciary, president Khama stated that Botswana’s respect for judicial independence is demonstrated by its respect for human rights and the rule of law. Further that this is confirmed by the fact that “… our reputation as a constitutional democracy has been one of the reasons for our high ranking internationally in the field of the rule of law…”



President Khama rightly stated that “…the core mandate of the judiciary is to function impartially, without favour or ill will…” Judicial officers, he said, should exercise their mandate “…without agendas or influences from outside affecting their judgements.” The question is: does judicial independence prevail in Botswana?

In terms of the Constitution, judicial independence is entrenched by, among other provisions, the appointment of judges by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in terms of sections 96(2) and 100(2) for High Court (HC) judges and Court of Appeal (CoA) judges respectively; and security of tenure for judges in terms of sections 97 and 101 for HC judges and CoA judges respectively.

It is, however, submitted that the JSC’s role in the appointment of judges is compromised by the fact that in terms of section 103(1) of the Constitution except for one member of the Law Society nominated by the Law Society, all members of the JSC (i.e. the CJ, President of the CoA, the Attorney General (AG), the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and a person of integrity and experience not being a legal practitioner appointed by the President) are presidential appointees and members of the Executive.

In Botswana, unlike in South Africa, neither Parliament nor civil society is represented in the JSC. Consequently, through the JSC, the Executive can ensure that only candidates sympathetic to government are appointed as judges. This view became entrenched when the president declined the advice of the JSC to appoint Gabriel Komboni, Lizo Ngcongco and Gabriel Rwelengera as judges. Recently, the president declined the JSC’s advice to appoint Omphemetse Motumise whose credentials include having been Chairperson of the Law Society of Botswana and Deputy Chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).

It is also worth noting that the independence that the JSC’s involvement seeks to achieve with respect to appointment of judges is negated by the manner in which the CJ and the President of the CoA are appointed. In terms of sections 96(1) and 100(1) of the Constitution, the CJ and the President of the CoA are appointed by the President acting alone.

The President, therefore, has a free hand and may be influenced by such irrelevant considerations as politics in making judicial appointments. To avoid this, we may borrow a leaf from South Africa where the JSC also advices the President in the appointment of the CJ.
 
Also, the fact that, though a tribunal, appointed in terms of sections 97(3) and 101(3) of the Constitution for HC judges and CoA judges respectively, is involved in investigating whether or not a judge should be removed from office, it is the president alone who, on the tribunal’s advice, removes the judge from office in terms of sections 97(4) and 101(4) of the Constitution for HC judges and CoA judges respectively, is inimical to judicial independence.

Assuming that judicial officers have integrity, the only solace is that, in terms of sections 97(3) (a) and 101(3) (a) of the Constitution, for HC judges and CoA judges respectively, the not less than two other members of the tribunal should be holding or have held high judicial office. But, there can be no guarantee since any person who serves at someone’s pleasure can be easily influenced. Also, there is no mention about the tribunal Chairperson’s qualifications, leaving the president with an unfettered discretion which he can use to appoint any person he can manipulate.    

Therefore, a president who, for some irrational or irrelevant considerations, wants to remove a judge from office may appoint a tribunal to achieve such a purpose. It is incontrovertible that very few such tribunals can have the audacity to make a recommendation contrary to the president’s implied, and sometimes secretly expressed, will to remove a judge. To avoid this, we may once again borrow a leaf from the South African Constitution where a two-thirds resolution by Parliament is required for the removal of a judge.

In Botswana’s legal history four judgments made many question the independence of our judiciary. First was the ruling which upheld section 41(1) of the Constitution which provides that “Whilst any person holds or performs the functions of the office of President no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him or her in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him or her either in his or her official capacity or in his or her private capacity and no civil proceedings shall be instituted or continued in respect of which relief is claimed against him or her in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in his or her private capacity”.

As a result of the aforesaid section, the late leader of Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD) and Secretary General of the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC), Gomolemo Motswaledi, lost the case in which he challenged President Khama’s powers to suspend him from the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP).

Second was Industrial Court Judge, Tebogo Maruping’s declaration that the 2011 public sector “…strike as it relates to essential service employees is unlawful and unprotected because the strike is in breach of the provisions of section 42(1) (b) (iii) of the Trade Dispute Act(TDA) as read with section 9(1) (b) in that on failure to reach agreement at mediation, the Commissioner of Labour lumped together all the employees and did not take account of the special provisions relating to the essential service employees”.

This decision was later, rightly so in my view, set aside by HC judge, Dr. Oagile Key Dingake. Third was the CoA’s quashing, erroneously so in my view, of Justice Dr. Dingake’s judgment in which he had set aside Justice Maruping’s judgment aforesaid.

Fourth was the HC’s decline to review President Khama’s action to, by presidential decree, postpone the Francis town West bye elections, allegedly in the public interest and in consideration of, among other things, a petition of a large number of voters in Francistown West constituency and the fact that the legal process then pending before the HC and the CoA had not been concluded.  

Recently, however, our courts have demonstrated commitment to jealously guard the independence of the judiciary. In late 2013, the CoA confirmed Justice Rannowane’s judgment that at the time of the submission of the nomination by the BDP’s Ignatius Moswaane, for the Francis town West bye elections, the interim order by Justice Tshepo Motswagole prohibiting Ignatius Moswaane from submitting nomination papers was still operational.

The CoA reasoned that “the concept of the rule of law obligated the IEC to obey the court order issued by Justice Motswagole and accordingly declined to accept nomination papers from Ignatius Moswaane”. Accordingly, the court held that “Court Orders are to be taken at face value and should be respected without debate”.

The Justices stated that “the IEC was legally justified and obliged to respect the said court order by refraining from accepting such nomination papers”.     

On 22nd April 2014 the CoA upheld Justice Dr. Dingake’s ruling and reversed the decision by government to declare teaching, veterinary services, diamond sorting and transport services as essential services. Justice Dr. Dingake’s ruling declared Section 49 of the TDA incompatible with the Constitution and thus invalid. It also declared as invalid Statutory Instrument (SI) No. 57 of 2011, made under Section 49. The appeal to the CoA concerned the extent to which, if at all, Parliament has the power to delegate its constitutionally conferred legislative function to the Executive.


In its judgment the court said “… in the majority of cases the legislative power delegated by Parliament in the interests of good government to ministers or to other administrators or bodies is the power to amend Schedules…It is only in comparatively rare cases that the power to amend substantive sections of an Act is so delegated …”.

This judgment was in line with international best practice since in South Africa, for example, in Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa 1995 10 BCLR 1253 (CC), the Constitutional Court held that it was inconsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers for Parliament to delegate its power to amend the laws to the president.


The court held that the decision as to which services or categories of services should be classified as essential services is an important policy matter properly to be debated in Parliament and to be subjected to public scrutiny. “This is more so because, in the case of the teachers and other public servants…, the right to strike was only fairly recently conferred upon them by an Act of Parliament, after full debate” the court held. The court held that to allow the right to strike to be arbitrarily cancelled by a member of the Executive would not pass constitutional muster.


Recently, the CoA upheld the HC’s ruling against the president in a case in which the president wanted the Parliamentary Standing Orders that provided for voting by secret ballot for the elections of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament and nominations for the Vice President to be set aside as unconstitutional. Many had concluded that the courts will rule in the president’s favour since the case was politically sensitive to the extent it could have a bearing on who becomes Vice President.


In view of the aforegoing, it is incontrovertible that, its deficiencies notwithstanding, the Constitution entrenches judicial independence. In terms of case law, it can also be concluded that our courts are largely independent. In my view, on a literal interpretation of section 41(1) of the Constitution, the decision in the Gomolemo Motswaledi case is not so irrational that no reasonable judge would have made it. However, the same cannot be said about the decision in the Francis town West bye election case regarding the non-reviewability of the president’s decree.

Continue Reading

Columns

Parricide at Herod’s Court

25th January 2021
SAILI

A wife, uncle, and two in-laws fall at the hands of Judah’s despot

The pre-eminent Jewish chronicler, Flavius Josephus, said of Herod the Great that he was “blessed with every gift of looks, body, and mind” but he was a “slave to his passions”. This was in the context of a gloating bloodlust.

His sword knew no sacred cows: neither his own kids, wives, in-laws, next of kin, nor bosom friends were immune from it. He is on record as pestering Caesar Augustus with a barrage of letters seeking permission to execute his own flesh and blood, prompting the Roman emperor to at one time quip that, “It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son”, which was apt: as a “Jew”, Herod did not eat pork and therefore in the event that he kept any pigs, they would never have to be killed.

You are by now well-apprised of the death of Hyrcanus II by the same Herod, General Atiku, in 30 BC. Hyrcanus, a Hasmonean ruler of Judah twice over, was actually the grandfather of Mariamne I, Herod’s most beloved wife and his second of up to 10 wives. It was Mariamne’s own mother Salome, who dreading Herod’s pathological savagery, pitched Mariamne to Herod in the hope that that would insure her family from Herod’s murderous caprices.

Now, Mariamne, General, was as much a stunning beauty as her younger brother Aristobulus III was breathtakingly good-looking. Having tied the knot with Herod in 37 BC, Mariamne had prevailed over her husband to install Aristobulus as High Priest. The post had fallen vacant on the death of Antigonus in 37 BC and Herod had appointed one Ananel, who had no ties whatsoever to the Hasmoneans, the first such in more than a century, in his place. Unable to resist the spirited entreaties of his beloved wife, who had also lobbied Queen Cleopatra of Egypt and her beau Mark Anthony, Herod gave in and replaced Ananel with Aristobulus, who was only 16 years old, in 36 BC.

Because of his enormous charisma and overall affability, Aristobulus was a hit with the masses despite his tender age and Herod was envious of the young man’s rock star-like popularity. To make doubly sure the young man did not harbour a seditious ace up his sleeve, the morbidly paranoid Herod had his spooks watch on both Aristobulus and his mother round the clock. Sensing imminent danger, Aristobulus contacted Cleopatra, asking for a pre-emptive safe passage to Egypt and there enjoy absolute freedom. When Herod got wind of this, he decided to get rid of Aristobulus as he did not wish him to be a perennial thorn in his flesh from the utter safety of self-imposed exile.

The opportunity came at a banquet in Jericho which was organised by Aristobulus’ mother. There, Herod had one of his henchmen cause Aristobulus to drown during a dusk time horseplay in a swimming pool. Of course Herod would forever maintain the drowning was accidental when everybody knew it was in truth a tactical elimination. Poor Aristobulus was only 17 years old having been born in 56 BC. He was the last Hasmonean High Priest and was replaced by the previously deposed Ananel, who was to remain in that position till 29 BC.

HEROD ACQUITTED OVER THE ARISTOBULUS DEATH

It need not be over-emphasised, General, that Mariamne and her mother Alexandra did not take Herod’s line over the all too untimely demise of Aristobulus lying down. If he had reckoned that with the death of Aristobulus he had gotten rid of potentially the most potent threat to his omnipotence, he was totally mistaken. Herod had actually simply fanned the flames of intrigue against him, for mother and daughter confronted him and accused him of murdering their boy in cold blood.

Nor did the two Iron Ladies end matters there: Alexandra wrote a lachrymal letter to Cleopatra to get her to bring her influence to bear on Mark Anthony so that Herod paid dearly and likewise for his nefarious act. Anthony, who at the time was the Roman colossus in charge of the whole of the Middle East, was persuaded and during a visit to Laodicea (in modern-day Turkey, though some accounts say it was Rhodes in Cyprus), he commanded Herod to report to him forthwith and exculpate himself over the affair.

Although Herod put a brave face on the matter, General, he was rather unsure of his eventual fate after the trial. He also suspected rightly or wrongly that Anthony had a thing for the voluptuously beautiful Mariamne and the last thing Herod wanted was for any other man to bed his beloved Mariamne even in death. So before he set off for Laodicea, Herod instructed his uncle Joseph, who was married to his sister Salome, to make sure that in the event that Anthony sentenced him to death, he should immediately put her to the sword. He also detailed a certain Sohemus, a most trusted aide, to stand sentry over the entire womenfolk at the palace.

Herod, however, had the nine lives of a cat, General. Using his immense rhetorical skills and the time-honoured palm greasing, he won himself an acquittal. Meanwhile, the Judean rumourville was abuzz with chatter that Herod had been summarily executed by Anthony, as a result of which people became spendthrifts of their tongues.

Both Joseph and Sohemus disclosed to Mariamne the instructions Herod had left them with in relation to her fate once he was no more. Mariamne was both livid and distraught that her husband regarded her as so easily expendable when outwardly he cherished her beyond words. To her mind, his arrangements with Joseph had nothing to do with love but sprang from sheer monstrosity. She probably thanked God that he was dead, but the fact of the matter was that he was not and when he at long last turned up, she did not want to have anything to do with him, including the conjugation which he so eagerly pined for after such an extended absence.

HEROD KILLS HIS WIFE AND HIS UNCLE

Now, if Herod had a kind of Svengali, General, it was his youngest sister Salome. Salome (65 BC-10 AD) was the most powerful woman at Herod’s court. A sly, scheming, and manipulating vixen, she arguably more than any other living being had the most sway in a negative sense on her brother, who took practically whatever she said as gospel truth.

Let us nevertheless, General, take stock of the fact that the bulk of what we learn about Salome comes from Flavius Josephus, who himself relied on the writings of Herod’s court historian Nicolaus of Damascus. For one reason or the other, Nicolaus did not see eye to eye with Salome and it is therefore possible that much of what Nicolaus relates of her is embellished to smear her before the court of history.
Upon his return, Herod was told of the rumours of his death and so was surprised to find Mariamne alive when Joseph and Sohemus should in the circumstances have had her killed if indeed they were loyal to him. In fact, Joseph had even put Mariamne and Alexandra into the safe custody of Roman legions stationed in Judea just in case Jewish malcontents who abhorred Herod turned their wrath on them.

But there was more. Salome reported to Herod that Mariamne, who she hated like the plague, had had sexual relations with both Joseph and Sohemus, this being Mariamne’s reward to them for dishing out to her the dirt on Herod, and that she had on several occasions before attempted to poison him. Now, no one would hump Herod’s most beloved wife and get away scotfree. It is therefore small wonder that Herod straightaway ordered the execution of Joseph and Sohemus. Joseph was 61 years old at the time of his death in 34 BC, having been born in 95 BC. In the case of Mariamne herself though, he had her subjected to a formal court trial not on charges of adultery but of attempted regicide.

Herod had hoped that the court would acquit her, whereupon he would make bygones be bygones so great was his love for the woman, but sadly for him, General, she was found guilty and sentenced to death. Even then, Herod tactfully dilly-dallied on signing the writ of execution and simply had his wife detained at a fortress for some time until Salome prevailed over him to execute her at long last. Writes Josephus: “Thus, with the death of the noble and lovely Mariamne ended the glorious history of the Hasmonean High Priest Mattathias and his descendants.”

For a long time to come though, General, Herod was haunted by the death of his wife to the point of even sometimes coming across as if he had lost his mind. “When Herod realised what this meant (the death sentence passed on Mariamne), he tried in vain to have the verdict changed, but Salome did not rest until the death penalty was carried out,” Josephus informs us. “Herod was heartbroken; nothing could comfort him for the loss of his lovely wife.

For seven years he refused to have her body buried, and held it, embalmed, in his palace. Afterwards, he became so melancholy and despondent, nothing interested him or could arouse any enthusiasm in him for living … He was so far conquered by his passion, that he would order his servants to call for Mariamne, as if she were still alive, and could still hear them … He tried hard to forget his trouble by going hunting and banqueting, but nothing helped. Herod built new cities and erected temples and palaces. He also named a tower in honour of Mariamne.”

HEROD SLAYS SISTER’S EX-HUBBY

Mariamne’s death was not the only one which Herod perpetrated through the instrumentality of Salome. There were actually several and included those of her own husband Costobarus. Salome was married four times, to her uncle Joseph (45 BC); Costobarus (34 BC); Sylleus (circa 27 BC); and Alexas (20 BC).

Like the Herod clan, Costobarus was of Idumean stock. It was Costobarus Herod had made governor of Idumea and Gaza and upon Joseph’s death had him tie the knot with Salome, with the couple eventually siring two children, Berenice and Antipater III. Costobarus, though, soon began to harbour monarchical ambitions of his own and wrote to Cleopatra beseeching her to persuade Mark Anthony to make Idumea independent of Herod and install him (Costobarus) as Rome’s client King of the territory.

Of course upon learning of this, Herod was not amused. It was Salome who pleaded with him not to put her husband to the sword. Next time, however, a dumped Costobarus was not so lucky. Seven years after their marriage, Salome and Costobarus parted ways and a possibly hurt Salome decided to exact vengeance. She informed her brother that he had been harbouring two fugitives from Herodian justice for a full 12 years at his own farm.

The two were simply known as the Sons of Baba. Baba ben Babuta, their father and clan patriarch, was related to the Hasmonean ruler Antigonus, who Herod had replaced and killed in 37 BC with the help of Roman legions. Baba and his sons had resisted Herod at the time, with his sons henceforth persisted in insurrectionist activity against Herod. Baba himself had been captured and blinded by Herod but spared anyway as he no longer posed any threat. Writes Josephus: “Now the Sons of Babas were of great dignity, and had power among the multitude, and were faithful to Antigonus, and were always raising calumnies against Herod, and encouraged the people to preserve the government to that royal family (the Hasmoneans) which held it by inheritance.”

Costobarus had provided the Sons of Baba an indefinite lair “supposing that their preservation might be of great advantage to him in the changes of government afterward”. Following the Salome tip, Herod had Costobarus and the Sons of Baba summarily executed “so that none was left alive of the family of Hyrcanus (the Hasmonean), and the kingdom was wholly in Herod’s power, there being no one of high rank to stand in the way of his unlawful acts” per Josephus.

NEXT WEEK: HEROD’S WRATH ON HIS OWN SONS

Continue Reading

Columns

WHAT’S UP WITH WHATSAPP?

25th January 2021

In early January, WhatsApp, part of Facebook Inc., began alerting its 2 billion users to an update of its privacy policy which, should they want to keep using the popular messaging app, they have to accept. Much of the policy, which is about commercialising WhatsApp, states ‘WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information with, the other Facebook Companies.

We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate and market services’. WhatsApp is now reserving the right to share data it collects about you with the broader Facebook network, which includes Instagram, regardless of whether you have accounts or profiles there, claiming it needs it to help operate and improve its offerings. More broadly, almost all of the $21.5 billion in revenues which Facebook generated in the third quarter of 2020 came from advertising and there is currently none in WhatsApp.

The company now wants to be able to serve more targeted ads to people on Facebook and Instagram by also garnering their usage habits on WhatsApp and enabling businesses take payments via WhatsApp for items that were selected on other Facebook sites. For long-time users, the option to share data with Facebook was made available in 2016, but it was just that: optional and temporary. It was now to become mandatory for everybody from Feb. 8 but owing to a massive backlash, the company has delayed that to May 15 to try and persuade users to sign up to the new Ts and Cs.

WhatsApp on Monday attempted to address the uproar over privacy concerns with a post on its website, explaining that the update was designed to aid businesses on its platform, as it reiterated in Friday’s post.

“We want to be clear that the policy update does not affect the privacy of your messages with friends or family in any way. Instead, this update includes changes related to messaging a business on WhatsApp, which is optional, and provides further transparency about how we collect and use data.”

These new terms have caused an outcry among technology experts, privacy advocates, billionaire entrepreneurs and government organisations and triggered a wave of defections to rival services. Elon Musk has urged his followers to switch to Signal and the governments of Turkey and India have threatened to block the app if it insists on proceeding.

‘WhatsApp’s updated privacy policy verges on user surveillance and threatens India’s security’, a petition filed in an Indian court said on Thursday, presenting another legal challenge for the Facebook Inc. -owned messenger. “It virtually gives a 360-degree profile into a person’s online activity,” lawyer Chaitanya Rohilla told the Delhi High Court. Many Indian users have began installing rival apps like Signal and Telegram, pushing WhatsApp to begin a costly advertising campaign to calm its 400 million customer-base, the largest of any country. The change has also met with a challenge in Turkey with the country’s Competition Board this week launching an investigation into the messaging service and its parent company.

Elsewhere too, in spite of Whatsapp protestations, millions of its users are already migrating to alternative platforms. Signal saw 7.5 million downloads last week,  a 4,200% spike since the previous week and large swaths of users also jumped to Telegram, as the platform gained 9 million new users last week, up 91% from the previous week. Both apps are now topping Google and Apple’s app stores,

Facebook could possibly learn a lesson from history here. Every past empire – Aztec, Mayan, Greco-Roman, Sumerian, Mongol, Chinese, Ottoman and more recently British, all saw their star rise, their glory swell, their boundaries grow and yet each eventually fell, often the instigators of their own downfall.

They expanded too far too fast and could not control what they had initially conquered. And now it looks like the same fate might await this large tech giant. Parent company Facebook has also come under fire recently for overt and covert censorship policies with questions raised as to partisanship and curtailment of freedom of speech. Thus one would have to question the wisdom of the timing of this new Whatsapp privacy policy, if nothing else.

To understand its influence and control one only has to check out the un-smart sector of the mobile phone industry which for some time has offered handsets a small step up from the basic starter sets with Facebook and Whatsapp as default screen app settings. These limited internet access options have allowed millions of users to connect with affordable data bundle packages.

And for Google smartphone subscribers, the search engine automatically connects its base to Whatsapp and Facebook – one big, happy family. Facebook is also seamlessly linked to Paypal offering contact-less charges for its boosted post advertising, a somewhat sinister partnership which accesses their Paypal log-in and authorisation details without the need to inform the payee – the transaction is simply deducted automatically from the registered credit card. This is Big Brother with a blue logo.

The bottom line here is that if you have any privacy issues at all – and you probably should – you might as well make the switch now before you are forced to sign away your rights in May. And the plus part is that both Signal and Telegram have the technological edge over Whatsapp anyway, the latter even being accessible on multiple platforms simultaneously, not just on your phone.
Empires take time to crumble and Facebook is not in imminent danger but information is a weapon that can be used in any war, even a virtual conflict, so don’t give this giant any more ammunition than it already has.

Continue Reading

Columns

The Daring Dozen at Bari

8th December 2020
JEFF---Batswana-smoke-unit

Seventy-seven years ago, on the evening of December 2, 1943, the Germans launched a surprise air raid on allied shipping in the Italian port of Bari, which was then the key supply centre for the British 8th army’s advance in Italy.

The attack was spearheaded by 105 Junkers JU88 bombers under the overall command of the infamous Air Marshal Wolfram von Richthofen (who had initially achieved international notoriety during the Spanish Civil War for his aerial bombardment of Guernica). In a little over an hour the German aircraft succeeded in sinking 28 transport and cargo ships, while further inflicting massive damage to the harbour’s facilities, resulting in the port being effectively put out of action for two months.

Over two thousand ground personnel were killed during the raid, with the release of a secret supply of mustard gas aboard one of the destroyed ships contributing to the death toll, as well as subsequent military and civilian casualties. The extent of the later is a controversy due to the fact that the American and British governments subsequently covered up the presence of the gas for decades.

At least five Batswana were killed and seven critically wounded during the raid, with one of the wounded being miraculously rescued floating unconscious out to sea with a head wound. He had been given up for dead when he returned to his unit fourteen days later. The fatalities and casualties all occurred when the enemy hit an ammunition ship adjacent to where 24 Batswana members of the African Pioneer Corps (APC) 1979 Smoke Company where posted.

Thereafter, the dozen surviving members of the unit distinguished themselves for their efficiency in putting up and maintaining smokescreens in their sector, which was credited with saving additional shipping. For his personal heroism in rallying his men following the initial explosions Company Corporal Chitu Bakombi was awarded the British Empire Medal, while his superior officer, Lieutenant N.F. Moor was later given an M.B.E.

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!