The Director of Public Prosecutions has put former deputy Permanent Secretary in the Ministry responsible for Minerals Dr Obolokile Obakeng together with the former director of Energy Kenneth Kerekang under the bus.
This emanates from a decision to disburse P250 million from the National Petroleum Fund (NPF).
Stephen Tiroyakgosi wants the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the High Court which resulted in businessman Bakang Seretse retaining his assets worth P69 million which were under the custody of the Receiver.
He said the High Court erred by holding that the facts averred by the Appellant (prosecution) do not disclose any offence.
“The Court a quo erred in fact and in law by holding that the mere fact that there were internal violations of processes of disbursement of the monies from the National Petroleum Fund does not mean that the owners of affected properties participated in the said violations,” said Tiroyakgosi.
He said the High Court erred by holding that Bakang Seretse did not have a role to play in the decision making of the disbursement of the initial amount of P 250,000,000.00 from the National Petroleum Fund.
“The Court a quo erred in fact and in law by holding that there was no proof that the further distribution of the aforesaid amount amounted to serious crimes;
The Court below also erred by holding that the prosecution ought to have sourced an affidavit from the Minister to confirm that there was no authorisation from him,” he said.
Tiroyakgosi reiterated: “The Court a quo erred in fact and in law by holding that Bakang Seretse was entitled to assume that Kenneth Kerekang and Dr. Obolokile Obakeng had, as senior government officers, requisite authority to authorise the disbursement of the funds.”
He said the High Court also erred by holding that the interested parties to the restrained properties were not aware of the internal processes pertaining to authorization for disbursement of funds.
“The Court a quo erred in fact and in law by not finding that the interested parties were not engaged in serious crime related activities. The Court a quo erred in fact and in law by not holding that the restrained properties were in fact proceeds of serious crime related activities,” said Tiroyakgosi.
He seeks an order upholding the appeal, setting aside the Order of the High Court dismissing the application. The DPP has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the restrained properties and/or monies are proceeds of serious crime related activities, he argues.
He also demands that the restrained properties should be forfeited to the government and to be dealt with by the Receiver in terms of the law and that all the affected parties are to pay the costs of the Application jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved, on an ordinary scale.
