26 May 2019

After yet another standoff, the matter involving Kenneth Kerekang, Bakang Seretse, Sadique Kebonang, Zain Kebonang and others who are facing multiple charges including money laundering of multi-millions diverted from the National Petroleum Fund (NDF), the court will on June 6 hear arguments which will determine the direction of the case.

During a court session before regional magistrate Mr Masilo Mathaka in Gaborone on May 24, the state sought to move an application for the amendment of the charge sheet, charging three more accused persons as well as for the case to be moved to the High Court.

Acting for the state, South African attorney, Mr Shaun Abrahams, who has been coopted into the case by the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP), said since the last court sitting on March 22, the prosecution had worked on amending the indictment to enlarge the breadth and scope of the charges initially preferred against the accused.

In addition, three more persons had been summonsed while the DPP had also given notice to take the matter to the High Court in accordance with Section 96 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, he said.

Opposing the state’s intentions, defence attorney Mr Kgosietsile Ngakaagae argued that he had already submitted an application for the charges to be quashed therefore the prosecution should not be allowed to make a counter application before the merits of the former were dealt with.

Confusion reigned in court as Mr Abrahams claimed defence attorney, Mr Unoda Mack, who represents three of the accused, had on behalf of all the accused agreed to the state’s proposal during a briefing the previous day.

But Mr Mack told the court that the discussion only centred around bail conditions while Mr Ngakaagae reiterated that the altering of the charge sheet should not take place before the defence’s  own plea for charges to be dropped was argued to its logical conclusion.

Magistrate Mathaka, who at the March sitting had ordered the state to provide further particulars in order to give the accused further clarity on the charges before pleading, wanted to know how the new charges would alter the current case.

He was told that while some of the charges relating to money laundering had remained the same, the state had worked on broadening the charge sheet to enhance the scope of the case.

Mr Mathaka said he was “less than impressed” with Mr Abrahams who seemed clueless when probed on the answers the state gave the defence in response to their request for further particulars.

The magistrate then set June 6 for hearing the defence’s arguments for the charges to be dropped and the accused acquitted as well as for the prosecution to present its own arguments for increasing the charges, adding three more accused and for moving the case to the High Court. ENDS