The high profile case in which Garvas Nchindo and Joe Matome are facing corruption charges is tomorrow (Monday) scheduled to resume before out-going Southern Regional Magistrate Lot Moroka after three months adjournment.
The Prosecution will continue with its case and it is expected that it will call one of its witnesses to give evidence.
At this time, it is not known who will be the next witness amongst the long list of witnesses it is still to call.
Amongst the witnesses are former Minister of Water Affairs and Mineral Resources, Boometswe Mokgothu; Boyce Sebetlela, who was once an accused in this matter but had his charges later withdrawn, together with those of the late Louis Nchindo, and Nicky Oppenheimer.
Before its adjournment three months ago, high profile witnesses that gave evidence in the case were former President Festus Mogae and former Minister of Education and Skills Development Jacob Nkate.
In a related matter, recently Lobatse High Court judge Lashkavinder Walia granted an order sort by Louis Garvas Nchindo, Joe Matome and others for introduction of supplementary affidavits in a case the state wants a restraining order on a Gaborone North plot at the center of these corruption charges.
Walia issued the order under some terms, which included that the Directorate of Public Prosecution delivers her affidavit to the ones filed by 1 August, 2010. She also ordered that neither party may file any further affidavits without the prior leave of her Court.
On the issue of costs, she said that the wasted costs and costs consequent on any postponement necessitated by the application shall stand over for argument at the conclusion of the substantive application, which she postponed to the 6th of October.
Before the order was granted, Matlhogonolo Phuthego of the DPP had submitted that they had not filed an answering affidavit to the one filed by the defence lawyers on grounds that the Court had not given leave for the filing of the affidavit that defence lawyers had wanted them to respond to.
That followed after the defence lawyers had queried that the DPP, which had made the application for the restraining order, was failing to comply with the requirements of their application.