24 Mar 2022

 In this tell-all interview, BOPA Reporter Moshe Galeragwe engages the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services (DISS) Public Relations Director Mr Edward Robert on the operations of the Directorate.   

Q: From the time of its inception, DIS has always been dogged by controversies, a reputation that has stuck with the organisation to this day. Can you tell us what the current state of affairs at the DIS is?

A: When Director-General Brigadier (Rtd) Peter Magosi took over, his vision was to transform the DIS internally and to enable it to carry out its mandate in supporting government as required by the Intelligence and Security Service Act. However, his quest was faced with challenges as it was happening during the transition stage with President Dr Mokgweetsi Masisi taking over the reign from his predecessor. President Dr Masisi had clear objectives to combat organised crime and corruption requiring proactivity and efficiency from the DIS and other law enforcement agencies. As such, the DIS is currently focused on that notwithstanding the fact that this was and is always going to be met with resistance within different sectors. 

The DIS’ proactivity is arguably part of what has caused a lot of controversy for it, as it is seen as intrusive and going above its legal mandate. How does the organisation reconcile itself with widespread public disapproval and accusations that it oversteps its mandate?

Despite the public controversy, the DIS has never departed from the requirements of the Act as doing so would be tantamount to defying Parliament. Criticism labelled against the DIS as going above its mandate is done without awareness of its established mandate. As per the requirements of section 5 Intelligence and Security Service Act, the DIS does not work in a vacuum, it acts in collaboration and cooperation with other government entities, departments and ministries to investigate, gather, coordinate, evaluate, correlate, interpret and disseminate information. 

How would you explain the prevailing public negativity against the DIS?

The public will always be right in demanding accountability from public entities like the DIS. However public perception is usually influenced by other factors, particularly the media and politics. If for whatever reason the media decides to frame stories involving the DIS around scandal and controversy, the public is more often than not going to take queue from that. This is not to say things always go right within the DIS, but it is unrealistic that the directorate is going to be omnipresent to the extent it touches every facet of official and social life as it is portrayed in the media. 

The Directorate however has to accept that due to the secretive and non-public nature of intelligence work, a lot of speculation will arise. This is common for all intelligence outfits across the world. Politicians also have different views about how intelligence work should be conducted and this is why the DIS will always be the subject of criticism and mistrust among some politicians and this is to be expected.

Are you implying that part of the narrative surrounding the DIS is a result of deliberate or calculated misinformation? 

Not necessarily all the time. However, sometimes it is clear that there are efforts to misrepresent the work of the DIS with the objective of causing unnecessary public anxiety. While any member of the public is free to criticize the DIS, other critics are actors who have objectives that go against the country’s national interests. Such persons try to divert attention from the fact that the DIS is successfully getting to the root of sophisticated crime and the network of entities and individuals involved. In some instances, alarming misinformation is spread through social media and conventional media to discredit the Directorate. However, in instances where the DIS has erred, it has been taken to the courts of law where it has lost some cases. This shows that it is under the authority of all laws of Botswana and will always subject itself to the requirements of the law and direction of the courts, contrary to the prevailing narrative.

One of the cases that attracted controversy for the DIS was the Butterfly case where the DIS was even accused by the courts of fabricating evidence to incriminate the cited persons. Is the public wrong to be critical of the DIS over that issue?

The DIS has never, and will never fabricate evidence for any case because it has the capacity to get to the bottom of the majority of the issues it investigates. The Butterfly case, unfortunately, involved gathering evidence in other jurisdictions. 

Such evidence was never gathered to be presented to the courts of law to facilitate the case. 

When the evidence could not be gathered due to lack of cooperation from those jurisdictions to help the case, one of the courts and the accused’s lawyers started popularising the term ‘fabricated’ even though this was out of context. You will remember there is an appeal pending against that judgment of the lower court. We maintain there was never any fabrication.

Former President Lt Gen. Dr Seretse Khama Ian Khama has been quoted several times in the media accusing the DIS of harassing and even trying to kill him. He has gone further to allege that the DIS was targeting his family members and his associates. What is the position of the DIS on this matter?

The fact of the matter is that the DIS has an established mandate directing it how to provide personal protection to VIPs and former Presidents. In his various complaints, former President Lt Gen Khama has expressed some concerns and preferences regarding his security. 

However, some of his preferences do not conform to the established protective security processes and this makes it difficult for the DIS to meet them without deviating from the law. Some of the problems emanate from the limitation of resources and routine needs assessments conducted in recent times. 

As you may be aware, government’s resources are under pressure due to the prevailing economic situation and the resources are always going to be distributed frugally, even to former presidents.

Another aspect is that former President Lt Gen Dr Khama and other persons have been subjected to investigations by the Directorate from time to time. In all cases, the Directorate is convinced that it has a legitimate basis under the law to investigate the various matters that have arisen in respect of the former president and other such persons. 

 The Directorate understands that the former president is aggrieved from being the subject of such investigations, however, the former president as an ordinary citizen of Botswana is also fully accountable to the laws of the country. In the instances where it may be necessary for him to account, the Directorate like other state institutions has a responsibility to ensure that he complies. 

The Directorate understands that as an esteemed former president of the country, the former president may get sympathy and an impression may be created that he is not accountable to anyone. That would, however, be incorrect, especially where there is reasonable basis to believe so. 

Where the Directorate has erred, it is also subject to the laws of Botswana and the courts have the full authority to remedy such errors in respect of all persons it may wrong, including the former President Khama. Former President Khama knows the position of the law and knows that he can redeem his rights any time he wishes to. 

Former President Khama has said many times that he has informants within the DIS and government who give him what he believes to be credible information regarding the Directorate and government’s conspiracies against him. What is your comment?

The Directorate is aware of his comments regarding the alleged informants. The Directorate cannot discount his claims because as a former head of state and public figure, the former president still commands following and loyalty in society. 

However, it would be concerning if the purpose of his relationship with these alleged sources is to inconvenience government business and the legally established mandates of public entities like the DIS and others. This would simply mean that the former president is receiving information from actors who are working against the country’s best interest in order to satisfy their loyalty to the former president. 

The Directorate hopes, however, that any person doing this will reflect and work in the best interest of the country, regardless of the disagreements that may exist on various issues.

Last week, the former president’s twin brothers (Tshekedi and Anthony) were arrested by the DIS and this created the recent controversy in which the Directorate was yet again criticised for harassing the Khamas. What is new this time?

There are ongoing investigations involving the Khama twin brothers which unfortunately the Directorate cannot divulge due to their sensitivity. 

The Directorate’s interest is to gather information that will help its investigations as it does in any other investigation against any other person. 

While it is understandable that the Khama brothers are known public figures, the reality is that the investigations are being done within the dictates of the law and there is no intention to harm them contrary to the claims by the former president. 

Unless there is a reason to believe that these individuals are immune to routine investigations by government agencies, there is no need to portray their interaction with law enforcement agencies as harassment. In instances where they are required to provide information, the Khama brothers have at all times been allowed to liaise with the legal representatives. 

Unfortunately, we see information alleging that they have been denied their different legal rights courtesies contrary to what has actually happened. If there is any basis by these individuals to believe their rights were violated, they are always encouraged to go to the nearest police station to report such occurrences. 

As far as the Directorate is concerned, no case has been reported containing specific allegations that any of the individuals were abused or violated.

Given its controversial reputation, how does the DIS perceive its role going forward and what is the organisation doing to improve public confidence especially given there are voices calling for its closure?

The biggest problem for the DIS is the widespread public misinformation in spite of the fact that its mandate is clearly spelt out in the Intelligence and Security Service Act (2008). 

We hope that the different issues arising in public discourse and some of the court cases involving the Directorate will play an important role in providing information about our mandate to the public. 

Besides that, the Directorate endeavours to continue educating the public about its mandate and functions, particularly what they mean to Botswana’s sovereignty, national interests and security. 

We however acknowledge that intelligence work due to its secretive nature will never completely remove suspicion from the media and the public. To that end, we hope that as we continue to conduct ourselves professionally, the value of our work will show itself in the eyes of the public. The DIS endeavors to be one of the best institutions in and out of the country. 

We hope to continue helping the country find solutions against all contemporary problems that may put the viability of the country at risk, be it terrorism, corruption, poaching, arms proliferation, cyber-crimes and consequential unpredictable events like pandemics and others. BOPA