30 Mar 2026

Parliament has been informed that the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) oversight structures are operational. Answering a question in Parliament recently, Minister for State President, Defence and Security, Mr Moeti Mohwasa said it was public knowledge that since its inception in 2008, the DIS operated for a long time without external audit and it was only in 2018 that it opened its doors to the Auditor General for perusal of their books. 

Previously, Minister Mohwasa said the DIS relied on oversight bodies including the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC) to account for public resources at their disposal.

 “Still, there was a challenge relating to effectiveness of such structures as some of them remained inactive owing to various reasons some of which are known to this House,” the minister said. He said the oversight structures were now functional with the exception of the Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, adding that the committee would be operational as soon as consultations were completed. 

He also indicated that updates relating to administration, institutional and oversight reforms within the DIS would be tabled before the Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security which was the relevant body mandated to deal with such matters. 

He reaffirmed government commitment to accountability, transparency and the rule of law across all its institutions which included the DIS. He said since the establishment of the DIS, a number of matters involving the Directorate had been adjudicated before the courts.

 However, he said comprehensive and centralised records, especially those isolating and categorising judgments in which the courts had expressly found that the directorate acted outside its legal mandate, were not maintained in that precise form. Consequently, he said it was currently not possible without undertaking an extensive case by case review of all litigation involving the DIS to provide a definitive numerical figure.

 Notwithstanding, he said, it was acknowledged that in certain instances the courts had made adverse findings regarding the conduct of the DIS, including determinations relating to the scope of its lawful authority. Such matters, he said, were treated with due seriousness and where appropriate measures were taken to ensure compliance with the law and to prevent recurrence.

 With regards to the DIS involvement in procurement, Mr Mohwasa said the organisation had no legal authority to award, direct, determine, influence or cancel any procurement decisions. 

“The entity rather shares security related intelligence with procurement authorities such as the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority which would then take independent decisions regarding any government procurement,” he said. Furthermore, he said any allegations of improper influence by the directorate must be reported to established oversight authorities such as the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC). 

Minister Mohwasa said asset acquisitions by the DIS were guided by operational requirements and subject to internal controls and audit where appropriate. Where necessary, he said the DIS provided intelligence service to financial investigations, adding if and when such investigations had national security consequence with regards to a case involving the alleged stolen funds from Bank of Botswana.

 He said not long ago, Parliament was informed that a holistic examination of the matter was being undertaken. Leader of Opposition and MP for Maun North, Mr Dumelang Saleshando had asked the minister to state reforms that had been made to the DIS to improve governance and oversight. 

Mr Saleshando also asked the minister to disclose whether or not government had since November 2024, undertaken any investigations into the DIS given the numerous complaints received against the organisation under the previous government. In particular, he called for disclosure of details on the DIS legal and operational conduct, the number of court judgments delivered against the DIS since its formation in which the court found that the directorate acted outside its legal mandate. Furthermore, he asked for a list of all tenders awarded by government departments or agencies that were influenced, directed, reviewed or terminated as a result of direct or indirect intervention by the DIS or in any way influenced by the DIS. He also wanted to know a schedule of all immovable properties acquired by the DIS since inception for purposes not directly related to its core security operations including but not limited to the Tautona Lodge and an explanation of the decision-making process for such acquisitions to ensure transparency and value for money.

 In addition, Mr Saleshando asked about DIS involvement in financial investigations and clarity on the role played by the DIS if any in the investigation or handling of the case involving alleged stolen funds from the Bank of Botswana. He wanted an explanation of how public resources allocated to the DIS were accounted for during any periods in which the organisation was not subject to audit by the Auditor General and a confirmation of whether the DIS would be included in the scope of the ongoing Forensic Audit. 

Furthermore, he called for a detailed account of any specific administrative operations or oversight reforms that had been implemented or proposed since November 2024 to prevent recurrence of past abuses of the spy agency and to ensure that the DIS operated strictly within its mandate and under the rule of law. ENDS