19 Feb 2019

Gaborone Regional Magistrate Masilo Mathaka  will, on March 22, rule on whether to quash charges preferred against former department of energy director, Kenneth Kerekang; businessman, Bakang Seretse and their co-accused former high court judge Zein Kebonang and Lobatse MP Sadique Kebonang in the ongoing National Petroleum Fund (NPF) money laundering case. 

The case has been going on since December 2017 when Kerekang, Seretse and Botho Leburu, against whom charges were dropped, are accused of involvement in diverting multimillions of pula from NPF to a private asset management company. 

Acting for the defence, attorneys Mr Kgosietsile Ngakaagae and Mr Unoda Mack argued that the state had taken too long to present the accused with further particulars of the charges in order to give them a better understanding of the of the indictments which would then allow them to plead and as such proceed with the case. 

Mr Mack said the state had the responsibility to disclose all information in its possession and lamented that even where the state had necessary documents, the requisite information was not given to the defence. 

Mr Ngakaagae said previously in Botswana, the state could take months on end to prepare without the accused being furnished with particulars of the case but that had since changed with Attorney General versus Wasim Ahmed where it was ruled that a person charged with a criminal offence was entitled to a fair hearing including being presented with full particulars of the charges. 

According to Mr Ngakaagae, the Louis Nchindo and others versus the State as well as the Vilakati versus Swaziland Government cases had similar rulings. 

Complaining about the vagueness of the charges against his clients, Mr Ngakaagae said various counts such as abuse of office, giving false information to a person employed in the civil service lacked greater clarity. 

“We were unduly denied the peculiarities for count one, the abuse of office by accused number one. 

That was the case with count two, giving false information to a person employed in the civil service; we need to know the exact occasion, the minutes of such a meeting, and if such false information was in writing,” Mr Ngakaagae said. 

He further dismissed as unclear other counts such as those of Seretse having forged a company resolution purported to have been sanctioned by Vusi Mhlanzi of Basis Points Capital and the opening of a bank account with Capital Bank Botswana. 

“Capital Bank is a corporate entity not an individual; people deal with cashiers or other individuals at the bank. We are not provided with the details of who Seretse dealt with at Capital Bank. 

This is about getting a fair hearing, we are dealing with Section 146 of the law, we need particulars before we could plead, not a trial by ambush. 

Since we have long asked for such particulars, and the trial has been going on for over a year, the court could quash the charge sheet in its current form or force the prosecution to furnish them,” Mr Ngakaagae said. 

Acting for the prosecution, Mr Wesson Mantswe told the court that the defence had been informed that such details were not necessary for pleading adding that since the case was likely to proceed to the high court, there was no need for the magistrate to make a pronouncement on the defence’s plea. 

Earlier, Magistrate Mathaka ruled against Mr Mantswe, who, acting upon the advice the Directorate of Public Prosecutions had received from an independent senior counsel, had sought a postponement of the case to allow the state to amend the charge sheet by way of joining other accused persons and preferring additional charges that might or might not include the accused persons. 

The magistrate agreed with counsel for the defence, who had opposed the postponement on the grounds that already various changes had been made to the charge sheet since the trial began in December 2017 and that any additional changes could be added without a postponement. Ends