The national conversation in the last several weeks has centered around issues of legality with regard to politics, the role and responsibilities of elected representation, the mandate and briefs of public officials and finally the legitimacy and authenticity of our public institutions. It would seem then that the crux of the matter is how the law, seems to be in dispute with not just democracy, but good governance ÔÇô accountability, transparency and moral and ethical stewardship – as a whole. But then again, if we take a more scrupulous gander at the various socio-political mechanisms in and at play in relation to all the above-mentioned, are we simply re-examining rule of law issues or are we in fact questioning the integrity of our political representatives, public officers and public institutions?
From a layman’s perspective, the law should ideally be (notice that I said should) clear, precise and easy to comprehend. Studies show that most ‘civilians’ ÔÇô and by that I mean those of us not involved in political and public theatre at a senior level particularly, view the world in black and white, right and wrong; allowing for ease of understanding and making sense of the goings-on around us. But rarely is the law that clear, and politicians in particular are masters of obfuscation (complicating, confusing, clouding, muddying and blowing and hiding behind smokescreens) when it comes to the law. They’re not the only ones however. High-ranking civil servants, perhaps because of their close proximity to political office, have also become masters of the game.
Let’s take a glance at a hypothetical example; if for instance, a senior public official whose role and responsibility is to oversee all matters relating to national security and intelligence trades in influence, by promising a personality accused and charged with multiple counts of corruption that he will either make evidence in his/her case disappear, suborn perjury on his/her behalf by persuading others called as key witnesses in the case to lie under oath, run interference on behalf of the accused so that he/she cannot be questioned by other regional and international law enforcement agencies looking into allegations of crime that involve cross border activities by the self-same accused; accepts in return for using the influence granted to him by purview of his office as the nation’s most senior law enforcement official (not reporting to the Minister of Justice Defense and Security, but to the President alone) a multi-million Pula property in Sentlhane Farms as payment. Is that a crime? Is that corruption? And by corruption I mean, “The use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes corruption if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence”. At this point, many readers may be thinking, ‘Is this writer a moron? What other term could be used to explain such an extraordinary set circumstances? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you call it what it is…corruption.” But wait, now for the obfuscation.
When the anti-graft busting agency then investigates said official (and this is all conjecture mind you); his defense is that the person charged with over 30 breaches of correct and legal behavior, now deceased, bestowed upon him as a gift, because of the nature of their father-son relationship, this exorbitant property out of love and affection. The giver of ‘the gift’ now dead, cannot speak for and/or defend himself. Convenient. Further, the family of the deceased, are as surprised as everyone else at the emergence of this new sibling; though perhaps they think, this is why, when it was first leaked three years ago that said official accepted monies and ‘gifts from their mutual parent, he called them personally to assure them that it was all lies. He had done no such thing. Take note now; not only had this information been brought to their attention by the media but also by impeachable sources close to the executive arm of government.
So later down the line, when in their whistle-blower guise, the press print excerpts from said officials interview/interrogation by the anti-corruption police (a leaked docket) in which said security official claims that that this big-ticket property was a gift from their father, as was hundreds of thousands of Pula. They’re left speechless by the man’s propensity for fabrications and falsehoods, his unmitigated gall in claiming any sort of special relationship with the deceased and wonder whether he’s just a common thief (though there’s nothing common about a man who steals millions), a pathological liar or if he’s simply a psychopath (a person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse)?
Leaked documents, financial records and eye-witness statements attest to how this public official approached business people, seeking shares in their companies, shares he paid nothing for. Men he’d never have met if it wasn’t for his position. Some of these people sought Botswana citizenship, others permits for their people and/or the fast-tracking of licenses and other certificates pertaining to their business interests. And this public official, who has by now developed a liking for the better things in life; first class travel, fancy cars, designer clothes, never-ending amounts of ready cash…busied himself making sure that the authorizations needed by such people were attended to, and promptly. And as for those who wouldn’t play his game. Why, he simply had them P.I.’d ÔÇô declared prohibited immigrants ÔÇô removed from this jurisdiction without charge or fair and open trial.
As greater evidence of malfeasance on the part of this official mounts; a man chosen and elevated numerous times by the President himself; a fact which he throws in the face of the public and the press any opportunity he gets. Swearing at journalists on the phone, dismissing them when they approach him in public places such as the airport, in front of foreigners and his own countrymen who are left breathless by his audacity and effrontery and when he departs with his usual arrogant rejoinder. “I only answer to the President.” People are left pondering how much further into the depths must our political and public officials descend before the President does something? How much longer will he allow our institutions to be eroded so that nothing of value remains?
And in this fable, our protagonist and those around him; people in power, those he knows too much about, those who’ve done crime with him but don’t intend to do time with him, rally. Maybe they’ve underestimated public indifference. No one seemed to be buying the usual story of allowing the law to take its course. In an election year perhaps permitting this man to remain in his position, with access to unlimited funds, state spying and eaves-dropping equipment and a force of ever-ready thugs wasn’t the wisest choice. How then can it be justified to the people, this man remaining in play and in a position where he can and will interfere with and derail legitimate investigation into his finances, business dealings and conduct while in office?
But our central character is now in a position to call the shots. He’s not going down alone or taking on the role of fall guy. He refuses to resign. Though the public hue and outcry is now deafening. A plan is hatched, let’s make him look sympathetic, let’s obfuscate some more and hope they’ll let it go. That a man with minimal savings and investment some five years ago, before his elevation to spy-master, had seemingly overnight become a financial genius and spun millions from almost naught. Records of his activities show that even before he was made substantive head of the nation’s security and intelligence establishment, but was the man behind its establishment on behalf of the President, he let ‘the right’ people know he’d be in a position to help them. Hence his acquisition of certain valuable shares in a commercial enterprise everyone wants to do business with. The sympathy ploy, a well-worded press release (that he didn’t write but was written for him) falls flat, no one is impressed by his plea for understanding and compassion on the grounds that he’s a son, husband and father. After all, whom has he ever had compassion for? It’s back to the drawing board, perhaps it’s time to convince him to submit to criminal prosecution now, while the current President and his benefactor is still in office. That way, after the show-trial they are planning, the President will simply pardon him. After all it’s been done before and they got away with it before. And according to the law, the President need not proffer any explanation to the public when absolving criminals, even if guilty of murder.
But in Botswana’s case, we have nothing to worry about, right? What would those on the ground know about what’s going on? Furthermore, the law is on our (their) side, and no one can actually call the executive to account, not even parliament. So if it’s just loss of integrity ÔÇô adherence to moral principles, honesty, truth, veracity – that were talking about, well no one can be prosecuted for that. But never-you-mind, this story is allegory, and the demise of political and public integrity in Botswana, the departure away from ethical stewardship, is a tale told in other parts of Africa, not here, because all the international rankings say so…..
