The Director-General of the Directorate of Intelligence and Services (DIS), Brigadier Peter Magosi’s role in a case in which Capital Management Botswana (CMB) Director Tim Marsland is accused of fleecing millions of Pula belonging to Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF), emerged at Court recently.
The Magosi factor attracted the attention of Court of Appeal’s Justice Isaac Lesetedi when he presided over an appeal application brought by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) recently. The appeal is against a recent judgement delivered by High Court Judge Boipuso Tshweneyagae, which discharged and acquitted Marsland and his former business alley RapulaOkaile of charges ranging from money laundering and theft.
Marsland and his former business partner RapulaOkaile were discharged of all criminal charges facing by High Court Judge Boipuso Tshweneyagae. They are accused of misappropriating part of the P477 million that CMB invested on behalf of BPOPF. Lesetedi raised concerns about the revelations made by Marsland in papers before the Court that contrary to claims by the prosecutions that he had attempted to flee to Germany to thwart his imminent extradition to Botswana, he was on his way to meet Magosi. Lesetedi asked Marsland’s lawyer Gabriel Kanjabanga why Magosi had to meet Marsland in Germany instead of South Africa, a thousand miles away from the neighbouring country.
Initially, Kanjabanga said he had not been briefed about the reasons for the planned meeting in Germany. But pressed further by Lesetedi, Kanjabanga revealed that “Marsland had been invited to go to Germany to meet Magosi”. He added that “he learnt that they wanted to arrest him, and he was not aware that a warrant of arrest had been issued for his arrest.” But a seemingly unconvinced Lesetedi wondered if the extradition proceedings would not proceed in South Africa instead of travelling to Germany.
“What was going to be the maximum impact there in Germany?” asked Lesetedi. Kanjabanga said, “The impact was that it would not be easy for him to secure bail. And present him as a flight risk who can’t be granted bail…” Lesetedi also added that he was asking because arresting Marsland would still not bring the desired results because Botswana did not have an extradition treaty with Germany; why would the meeting meant to capture Marsland take place in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with Botswana.
Kanjabanga submitted that Marsland was not a flight risk. “The issue of him escaping to Germany; why would someone who wants to escape to Germany buy a return flight ticket,” said Kanjabanga. Marsland distanced himself from suggesting that he would flee to Germany in papers before the Court, describing it as false. He also denied having attempted to escape to Germany. Instead, he stated that at the time of his arrest, he “was en route to meet Mr Peter Magosi,” adding that he had no intentions whatsoever of fleeing anywhere.
In his founding affidavit, DPP Director Steven Tiroyakgosi says that Marsland was arrested in South Africa pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued in Botswana on 11th June, pending extradition to Botswana, the same warrant that the High Court Judge Tshweneyagae has set aside. “The setting aside of the warrant will prejudice other accused persons represented by Marsland, namely CMB, Capital Management Africa Emsite Pty Ltd that forms part of the offenders in the case and have not been acquitted in the judgement,” said Tiroyakgosi
He said Marsland would use this judgement to secure his liberation from custody in South Africa whilst awaiting extradition. “At the time of his arrest at OR Tambo International Airport, he attempted to flee the Republic of South Africa for Germany. If the matter is not stayed off, Mr Timothy Marsland will not stand trial in Botswana. He is likely to flee the Republic of South Africa to a country we do not have extradition relations with, for example, Germany, which he was running to at the time of his arrest.
The said attempted escape was after receipt of information of his impending arrest at the time,” said Tiroyakgosi. He added that “Mr Timothy Marsland has delayed his extradition hearing by postponing it several times for a year and in the meantime applying for his release.”
Botswana has made improvements on preventing and ending arbitrary deprivation of liberty, but significant challenges remain in further developing and implementing a legal framework, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said at the end of a visit recently.
Head of the delegation, Elina Steinerte, appreciated the transparency of Botswana for opening her doors to them. Having had full and unimpeded access and visited 19 places of deprivation of liberty and confidentiality interviewing over 100 persons deprived of their liberty.
She mentioned “We commend Botswana for its openness in inviting the Working Group to conduct this visit which is the first visit of the Working Group to the Southern African region in over a decade. This is a further extension of the commitment to uphold international human rights obligations undertaken by Botswana through its ratification of international human rights treaties.”
Another good act Botswana has been praised for is the remission of sentences. Steinerte echoed that the Prisons Act grants remission of one third of the sentence to anyone who has been imprisoned for more than one month unless the person has been sentenced to life imprisonment or detained at the President’s Pleasure or if the remission would result in the discharge of any prisoner before serving a term of imprisonment of one month.
On the other side; The Group received testimonies about the police using excessive force, including beatings, electrocution, and suffocation of suspects to extract confessions. Of which when the suspects raised the matter with the magistrates, medical examinations would be ordered but often not carried out and the consideration of cases would proceed.
“The Group recall that any such treatment may amount to torture and ill-treatment absolutely prohibited in international law and also lead to arbitrary detention. Judicial authorities must ensure that the Government has met its obligation of demonstrating that confessions were given without coercion, including through any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure. Judges should consider inadmissible any statement obtained through torture or ill-treatment and should order prompt and effective investigations into such allegations,” said Steinerte.
One of the group’s main concern was the DIS held suspects for over 48 hours for interviews. Established under the Intelligence and Security Service Act, the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) has powers to arrest with or without a warrant.
The group said the “DIS usually requests individuals to come in for an interview and has no powers to detain anyone beyond 48 hours; any overnight detention would take place in regular police stations.”
The Group was able to visit the DIS facilities in Sebele and received numerous testimonies from persons who have been taken there for interviewing, making it evident that individuals can be detained in the facility even if the detention does not last more than few hours.
Moreover, while arrest without a warrant is permissible only when there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, the evidence received indicates that arrests without a warrant are a rule rather than an exception, in contravention to article 9 of the Covenant.
Even short periods of detention constitute deprivation of liberty when a person is not free to leave at will and in all those instances when safeguards against arbitrary detention are violated, also such short periods may amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The group also learned of instances when persons were taken to DIS for interviewing without being given the possibility to notify their next of kin and that while individuals are allowed to consult their lawyers prior to being interviewed, lawyers are not allowed to be present during the interviews.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention mentioned they will continue engaging in the constructive dialogue with the Government of Botswana over the following months while they determine their final conclusions in relation to the country visit.
Standard Chartered Bank Botswana (SCBB) has informed the government that it will not be accepting new loan applications for the Government Employees Motor Vehicle and Residential Property Advance Scheme (GEMVAS and LAMVAS) facility.
This emerges in a correspondence between Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance Boniface Mphetlhe and some government departments. In a letter he wrote recently to government departments informing them of the decision, Mphetlhe indicated that the Ministry received a request from the Bank to consider reviewing GEMVAS and LAMVAS agreement.
He said: “In summary SCBB requested the following; Government should consider reviewing GEMVAS and LAMVAS interest rate from prime plus 0.5% to prime plus 2%.” The Bank indicated that the review should be both for existing GEMVAS and LAMVAS clients and potential customers going forward.
Mphetlhe said the Bank informed the Ministry that the current GEMVAS and LAMVAS interest rate structure results into them making losses, “as the cost of loa disbursements is higher that their end collections.”
He said it also requested that the loan tenure for the residential property loans to be increased from 20 to 25 years and the loan tenure for new motor vehicles loans to be increased from 60 months to 72 months.
Mphetlhe indicated that the Bank’s request has been duly forwarded to the Directorate of Public Service Management for consideration, since GEMVAS and LAMVAS is a Condition of Service Scheme. He saidthe Bank did also inform the Ministry that if the matter is not resolved by the 6th June, 2022, they would cease receipt of new GEMVAS and LAMVAS loan applications.
“A follow up virtual meeting was held to discuss their resolution and SCB did confirm that they will not be accepting any new loans from GEMVAS and LAMVAS. The decision includes top-up advances,” said Mphetlhe. He advised civil servants to consider applying for loans from other banks.
In a letter addressed to the Ministry, SCBB Chief Executive Officer Mpho Masupe informed theministry that, “Reference is made to your letter dated 18th March 2022 wherein the Ministry had indicated that feedback to our proposal on the above subject is being sought.”
In thesame letter dated 10 May 2022, Masupe stated that the Bank was requesting for an update on the Ministry’s engagements with the relevant stakeholder (Directorate of Public Service Management) and provide an indicative timeline for conclusion.
He said the “SCBB informs the Ministry of its intention to cease issuance of new loans to applicants from 6th June 2022 in absence of any feedback on the matter and closure of the discussions between the two parties.” Previously, Masupe had also had requested the Ministry to consider a review of clause 3 of the agreement which speaks to the interest rate charged on the facilities.
Masupe indicated in the letter dated 21 December 2021 that although all the Banks in the market had signed a similar agreement, subject to amendments that each may have requested. “We would like to suggest that our review be considered individually as opposed to being an industry position as we are cognisant of the requirements of section 25 of the Competition Act of 2018 which discourages fixing of pricing set for consumers,” he said.
He added that,“In this way,clients would still have the opportunity to shop around for more favourable pricing and the other Banks, may if they wish to, similarly, individually approach your office for a review of their pricing to the extent that they deem suitable for their respective organisations.”
Masupe also stated that: “On the issue of our request for the revision of the Interest Rate, we kindly request for an increase from the current rate of prime plus 0.5% to prime plus 2%, with no other increases during the loan period.” The Bank CEO said the rationale for the request to review pricing is due to the current construct of the GEMVAS scheme which is currently structured in a way that is resulting in the Bank making a loss.
“The greater part of the GEMVAS portfolio is the mortgage boo which constitutes 40% of the Bank’s total mortgage portfolio,” said Masupe. He saidthe losses that the Bank is incurring are as a result of the legacy pricing of prime plus 0% as the 1995 agreement which a slight increase in the August 2018 agreement to prime plus 0.5%.
“With this pricing, the GEMVAS portfolio has not been profitable to the Bank, causing distress and impeding its ability to continue to support government employees to buy houses and cars. The portfolio is currently priced at 5.25%,” he said. Masupe said the performance of both the GEMVAS home loan and auto loan portfolios in terms of profitability have become unsustainable for the Bank.
Healso said, when the agreement was signed in August 2018, the prime lending rate was 6.75% which made the pricing in effect at the time sufficient from a profitable perspective. “It has since dropped by a total 1.5%. The funds that are loaned to customers are sourced at a high rate, which now leaves the Bank with marginal profits on the portfolio before factoring in other operational expenses associated with administration of the scheme and after sales care of the portfolio,” said the CEO.