The former Permanent Secretary in the then Ministry of Local Government and Lands, Elvidges Mhlauli, will tomorrow (Monday) know his fate in a case in which he is facing corruption charges.
The judgment was initially scheduled for Thursday 13 December but on that day the Magistrate presiding over the case, Gaborone Chief Magistrate Lot Moroka, told the Court that the case had been postponed to Monday.
The accused person, Mhlauli, his lawyer, Kgalalelo Monthe, and his South African-based advocate Van Zyl were all not present with consent of the Court.
Mhlauli is facing charges of having lied under oath whilst he was still the Permanent Secretary and faces two counts of abuse of office in the matter surrounding the allocation of a plot to Eddie Norman in the famous River Walk Mall of Gaborone.
The state alleges that he had during that incident lied on issues surrounding the allocation of the plot as to who was entitled to it. The most interesting part of the case was when Mhlauli was in the box.
Whilst in the box and under cross examination, Mhauli started blaming Abdullah Goolam for all the mess he was in. According to him, Goolam was the brains behind the whole case of trying to take away the plot from Norman whom he had apparently instructed that he be given the plot when it was clear that he was not supposed to have been the recipient of the plot.
He said that Golam had also played a vital part in the case in that he had offered to finance institution of a case in the High Court against Norman. He also denied having threatened Kadimo Oremeng who, it is said, is supposed to have been awarded the plot and that he was threatened by Goolam instead.
Besides judgment on Mhlauli, Moroka is also expected to rule whether he was satisfied with the evidence which the Court was given by Kadimo Oremeng who gave evidence as an accomplice witness.
After Oremeng had given evidence, Moroka had told the Court that he would reserve judgment on this issue to a later date.
Oremeng has come under attack from Van Zly who submitted that he was not a consistent witness and that his evidence should be taken with caution. As an example of the inconsistence he was alluding to, he cited the statements Oremeng gave to the police as being different from the ones he gave to the officials of the DCEC.