Connect with us

State Capture: What can Parliament do?  

The media has been awash with reports of questionable business dealings of the president. There are also reports that the President has applied for a state farm, a portion of Banyana Farms.

Are these matters of public concern and if yes, what should Parliament do? What is available to Members of Parliament (MPs) to get clarity on these matters and hold the President accountable? Does Parliament have the authority and ability to probe these matters?

A quick search on the Companies and Intellectual Property Authority (CIPA) website for a business entity named Arcee Propriety Limited, reveals that the firm’s shareholders are Mokgweetsi Eric K Masisi and Ramachandran Ottapathu, the President of the Republic and a known Indian businessman respectively. A further search for Arcee Propriety Limited yields annual financial statements/reports from Choppies Enterprises Limited and The Far Property Company Limited.

These documents disclose that Arcee Pty Ltd operates from a warehouse at Gaborone Block Three industrial owned by The Far Property Company Limited. The documents show that Choppies Enterprise Limited made payments to Arcee Pty Ltd (in 2017 & 2018) for goods and or services rendered.

As stated above, Arcee Pty Ltd operates from a premises owned by The Far Property Company (at least according to The Far Property Company’ 2019 integrated annual report). A quick search of The Far Property Company on the CIPA database reveals the shareholders to be a certain Farouk Ismail, Ramachandran Ottapathu, co-founders of Choppies, and a host of institutional investors; Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF) and Debswana Pension Fund (DPF). BPOPF and DPF are of particular interest because they represent a bulk of employed Batswana. These pension funds invest most of the funds under their portfolios externally. In the few cases that they invest locally it is mostly in large corporations that are already doing well and do not struggle to attract private capital.

Recently, Botswana Development Corporation (BDC) acquired a stake in KAMOSO at around P200 million, allegedly contravening competition principles and the law. A quick search of KAMOSO on the CIPA website reveals that a certain Ramachandran Ottapathu is a shareholder. BDC is a government owned investment arm supposedly driving government agenda of transforming the economy for greater citizen participation. Another eye sore regarding this acquisition is that the President has direct business dealings with Ramachandran Ottapathu, no matter how one tries to sanitize the deal, it does not look pretty at all. There are many red flags for state capture.

So what can Parliament do? MPs can ask ordinary questions or questions without notice or themes or ministers questions in terms of Standing Orders 36, 37 and 40(A).  Ordinary questions can be limiting for a weighty issue like this. Ministers questions or themes are better as they are allocated 45 minutes a question or half of the time if two such questions are in the order paper. They can only be asked on Fridays.

Ministers questions spark a mini-debate in which MPs can ask follow up questions or make quick comments. MPs are given 5 minutes to ask ministers questions or themes. The problem is that some ministers provide a long pointlessly detailed answer to steal MPs time, the effect being that few follow-up questions can be asked. The Speaker has to agree that a theme contains an urgent matter of importance and the Minister has to also agree to answer this question specially to indicate the time in which it can be put in the Order Paper.

MPs can write to the Speaker under Standing Order 40(B) and ask The Leader of the House/Vice President to explain these dealings and account on perceived conflict of interest and state capture. The Standing Orders, unlike in South Africa or United Kingdom where Botswana system was copied, don’t provide for President question time. Only ministers and the Vice President can answer questions in the House.

MPs can table a motion in accordance with Standing Order 44 to ask Parliament to resolve on this matter. Standing Order 50 can be utilized to move an urgent motion so that the House adjourns any Business it is dealing with at the time to urgently deal with a motion on the issue for exactly two hours. The challenge with this avenue is that first, the Speaker must agree that the motion is urgent and of public importance.

Second, if the ruling party doesn’t agree that there be an adjournment of Business to focus on the matter, the motion dies immediately. If the motion is debated, it can be negated or adopted. If negated, the process could only serve to sensitize the public with no tangible consequences. If it’s adopted, the Executive may decide to just ignore it, like it has done with many others. A motion can ask the House to resolve to probe the matter further through a Special Select Committees, or a Commission of Inquiry or to ask the House to resolve to ask the President to relinquish his business dealings. The motion can be crafted in any manner MPs deem fit to hold the President accountable.

MPs can table a Private Bill to, for instance, prohibit the President from engaging in private business ventures or to not engage in anything which may present real or potential conflict of interest. The Leader of opposition can also make a short statement, if the Speaker agrees with the contents of his speech.

Parliamentary Committees are also one way in which questions can be asked. Committees such as Statutory Bodies Committee can inquire state owned enterprises and parastatals such as BDC, Botswana Unified Revenue Services (BURS) and Competition Authority, among others to explain.

When one examines the annual Financial Reports/Statements of Choppies Enterprises pty ltd, there exists a pattern of numerous transactions between it and a host of other companies whose Directors are either Ram or Farouk. Can BURS say with absolute certainty that the amounts declared as value of goods and or services provided by the multiple entities to Choppies enterprises are accurate? Is there transfer pricing going on here?

What specific pieces of legislation can be applied to deal with these likelihoods of transfer pricing and are these laws adequate and effective? This is what the Committee should investigate. A lot of the said transactions between Choppies Enterprises pty ltd and entities directly owned by either Ram and or Farouk, are reported as real expenditure and or income depending of the direction of the transaction, creating a situation where the balance sheet can easily be overstated.

Can the Botswana Stock Exchange (BSE) assure the public that the value at which Choppies Enterprises pty ltd stock trades is accurate and that potential investors and or current stock holders are not being deceived? It could be that Choppies pays tax amount of their liking because BURS cannot guard against transfer pricing that happens there. It is possible that the BSE cannot determine the true value of Choppies stock.

It is up to Parliament to find out. Is there a need for effective legislation to curb the ostensibly crooked Choppies business model? It is possible to short change other Choppies holders by cooking the books to reflect very small profits and move money to the suppliers Ram and Farouk own. Choppies, it is highly probable, operates in the wild wild west. Are these businessmen and entities getting protection for the President who is also their business partner? Is the state captured?

Whatever MPs chose, one thing is clear that MPs should focus on. The President of Botswana cannot be in private Business in a country where the state plays an important role in the economy. It is morally wrong, a recipe for corruption and bad corporate governance.

The state is a regulator, it collects taxes, it is the biggest buyer of goods and services, directly and indirectly, the economy revolves around the state. The President can’t compete fairly, as a businessman, with Batswana or foreigners doing business because the power to govern vest in him in terms of sections 47 of the Constitution.

The constitution provides that the President exercises his powers directly or indirectly through officers subordinate to him. How will his subordinates, at competition authority or any industry’s authority, regulate his businesses without fear or favour? He has immunity from civil and criminal proceedings according to Section 41 of the Constitution, so it’ll be difficult for business partners, competitors or regulators to litigate and enforce contractual matters. They may also just fear the President.

Those who offered shares to the President or ae in businesses with him should be prosecuted for bribery. They’ve offered and provided a valuable consideration to the President by being in business with him. They know that being with him in Business means public policy will be manipulated to favour their businesses. It is Parliament which should investigate the extent of the capture. Other businesses may be compelled to do business with a company that has the President as a shareholder.

Moreover, The President knows future government plans, he gets intelligence briefs and other vital economic related information that could advantage him and his business associates and disadvantage real or potential competitors. What the business people are doing by being with the President in a boardroom as a Director is what is called state capture-public policy decisions are made with clear intentions to benefit the politically connected elites in Business, political leadership and bureaucracy but not ordinary people. These business dealings are elite corruption at a grand scale, simple.

Continue Reading


Parricide at Herod’s Court

25th January 2021

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.


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.


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.”


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.


Continue Reading



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


The Daring Dozen at Bari

8th December 2020

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!