The Media owes a duty to the public to cover stories of corruption particularly corruption committed by politicians and business leaders. In so doing, the Media acts as a source of information to law enforcement agencies on incidents of corruption that the agencies could well have been unaware of. On the other hand, particularly in countries where there is a genuine institutionalized abhorrence to corruption, Media exposes on corruption results in political action being taken against leaders who peddle corruption by forcing them to resign, dismissing or suspending them pending investigations in to their conduct or causing them to flee the country in humiliation. That way, potential economy hoarders are deterred from replicating the corrupt actions of their disgraced ilk for fear of public exposure and humiliation.
The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) knows very well the benefits of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two institutions and has previously effectively harnessed it. One of the important sources of intelligence gathering employed by DCEC, and the same goes for other law enforcement agencies, are Media accounts on alleged corrupt activities. Not only that, DCEC has since its inception adopted a policy of “naming and shaming”, through which those charged or convicted of corruption or economic crime are exposed, the platform for such exposure being the Media.
DCEC, as an institution was pioneered by officers, mostly British, who commanded vast experience in law enforcement and anti corruption duties. DCEC’s founding Director, Graham Stockwell, for instance, was the former Head of Operations, Deputy Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in Hong Kong and had previously served in the London Metropolitan Police. The local staff complement was largely drawn from the ranks and file of the Botswana Police Services. The infusion of experience from the jurisdictions where the British pioneers had practised – needless to say, more efficient and advanced – brought about a culture of respect for basic human rights in the treatment of suspects. DCEC became one law enforcement agency in Botswana that did not merely pay lip service to the right of the individual to legal representation and the guarantee to suspects of their other Constitutional rights.
Over the years it became a norm for DCEC officers to enquire from a suspect if he had a lawyer and to invite the lawyer to attend interview sessions of their suspect clients. Through this practice, when allegations of abuse, torture and other despicable intrusions to the individual were commonplace within the police, intelligence and security organs of the Military, DCEC remained insulated. It had earned its mantle as a bastion of proper and independent policing. DCEC was thus able to carry out its statutory mandate and nothing inimical in its relations to the Media during the epoch of Stockwell and his successor, Tymon Katlholo, has been recorded. Similarly, the organisation was able to maintain a non-antagonistic relationship with the legal fraternity ÔÇô one borne of mutual respect for the law and the respective roles played by each in the fight against corruption and the quest for justice.
Section 44, which prohibits disclosure of information relating to investigations, or the identities of persons investigated for offences, under the Corruption and Economic Crime Act (CECA) has always existed since the inception of the institution in 1994. However, like other moribund provisions in the statute books, such as sedition, this provision became a mere chattel. Under its watch, the Media in Botswana enjoyed its space and excelled in quantum leaps in its coverage of corruption and economic crime, much to the appreciation of the public. There was no demur from DCEC with the manner in which local Media went above discharging its mandate.
When President Ian Khama ascended to the presidency, the ethos of the country, particularly those relating to security rapidly changed. The Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services (DISS) was formed in March 2008. The immediate outcry raised by the opposition and other sections of civil society was the lack of an effective oversight mechanism in the institutional framework of this new spy organisation. In his March, 2014 dissertation titled, Intelligence Democracy Dilemma: A Critical Evaluation of the Intelligence Oversight Regime in Botswana, DISS senior operative, Lesego Tsholofelo, writing on this lack of oversight on DISS, which in terms of the DISS Act is to be provided by a Parliamentary Committee and a Tribunal states:
“Currently, both the Parliamentary Committee and the Tribunal have nothing to show for their five-year existence in the form of the required parliamentary reports since the agency’s inception. Compounding the Act’s oversight weaknesses is the fact that it conspicuously excludes the other intelligence gathering entities like the police, military and the anti-corruption agency despite the trio’s elaborate covert operations amongst the citizens. It is therefore imperative for these oversight structures to be reviewed if the country is to maintain its status as a model of democracy in Africa.”
Tsholofelo’s observations are absolutely apt, even to the present day. No sooner had the spy outfit been established did the negative effects of lack of oversight manifest themselves, not only in the area of wanton violation of individuals’ civil liberties, including extra judicial killings, but also lack of accountability in respect to huge financial outlays (or operational fund) placed at its disposal. The organisation’s Head, Isaac Kgosi, quickly found himself embroiled in an a seemingly never ending investigation by DCEC, in which it is alleged against him a whole array of murky and unsavoury deeds, including corruption, money laundering, influence peddling and theft. This investigation, which commenced in 2011-2012, placed the DCEC on a collision course with the all powerful DISS.
Khama’s immediate response was to move DCEC from the portfolio responsibility of a cabinet minister to the Office of the President (OP), where DISS is similarly placed. The move was not to afford the organisation any greater muscle but to ensure its micro management. It is customary in the public service that those facing criminal charges are suspended or step down on their own volition. Despite this and calls by the Media that he suspends Kgosi pending the final determination of his case, Khama has consistently spurned such calls. At the same time, although the investigation had started that long ago, DCEC had placed a tight lid on this investigation rendering it to something of a cold case. Just when cobwebs had formed on the Kgosi docket stashed away in a closet at DCEC, the lid was lifted, when it was leaked to the Media. It then became an open season for the Botswana Media, as frenzy on the Kgosi docket expose poured out day in, day out.
The changes in the ethos of Botswana society with advent of Khama, the Kgosi investigation and the transfer of DCEC from a ministerial portfolio responsibility to the OP, took place at the time when Rose Seretse was a the helm of DCEC. Seretse had taken over the reigns from Tymon Katlholo as Director. It would appear that the new Director had become overwhelmed and exposed to tremendous pressure to account for the unprecedented leaks on the Kgosi docket. For the first time in its history, in July, 2014, DCEC brought up an urgent court interdict in the High Court against the Sunday Standard seeking to gag it from running further exposes on the Kgosi docket. The Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA) threw its weight behind the besieged newspaper, which in turn countered by challenging the Constitutionality of section 44 of the DCEC Act.
The DCEC case against the Sunday Standard triggered collaboration between the country’s media houses never witnessed before. Whilst DCEC managed to obtain a partial gag against the Sunday Standard, reports from the Kgosi Docket continued to be published by other newspapers. The country’s leading public sector union waded in to the fray and ran the Kgosi’s interview tapes transcript on social media. Seretse found herself between a rock and a hard place.
Whereas her predecessors had learnt to find common ground with Media, treating the Fourth Estate as a partner in the fight against corruption, Seretse chose to adopt a hard line position against the institution ÔÇô a foolhardy position I must say. She must have momentarily realised how untenable her position was when her urgent court case against the Sunday Standard failed to stem the tide on the Kgosi docket exposes.
Resorting to a belated attempt at diplomacy, in July, 2014, Seretse quickly scrambled a meeting with the Botswana Editors’ Forum, at which the President’s Spokesperson, Jeff Ramsay and representatives from the Attorney General’s Chambers were invited. The DCEC Director’s plea to the Media was singular: reports on the Kgosi investigation had to stop forthwith. In response, the Editors demanded that she “should indicate when she expected her Department to have completed the investigations [against Kgosi] and to make an unequivocal undertaking that upon this eventuality, she would transmit the case docket to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enable him to make his decision on whether to prosecute or not.”
This must have been a tall order for Seretse, for the Editors sounded a death knell on all attempts on diplomacy. The cloves were now off. In August, 2014, the Sunday Standard carried a story titled; “President hit in car accident while driving alone at night”, in which the paper reported that Khama had been involved in the alleged car accident, whilst driving unescorted at night. This report was to be another keg in the ongoing tussle that has characterised the relationship between Khama and the local Media. Sunday Standard Editor, Outsa Mokone was quickly taken into police custody and slapped with sedition charges. Sunday Standard reporter Edgar Tsimane skipped the country and has been granted asylum in South Africa. The newspaper’s offices were, just like in the Gazette case, frisked by mean looking security agents. The only difference is that unlike in the Gazette case, in which the paper’s lawyer, Joao Salbany was detained; Sunday Standard lawyer escaped the wrath of the Media hostile State.
One would immediately draw a similarity in the approach adopted by the police in all the cases discussed. In all of the them the Executive has dusted the statute books and pulled out provisions of law that we all presumed moribund, to unleash its fury on the private Media. The cases also signal a change in the attitude of the State of not hesitating to imprison not only the messenger, but those who stand up in his defence – the lawyer.
The Gazette case must be understood within the context of the ongoing turf war between the Fourth Estate and the Khama led government. On numerous occasions, Khama has not hidden his disdain for the local Media; boasting of how he does not read private local print and labeling it irresponsible. On the other hand the private Media has decried Khama’s undemocratic machinations; his fixation with security to the detriment of other demands of Botswana, a developmental state; and high profile corruption that has become endemic under his rule.
To the private Media, all democracy loving peoples of the country sing their accolades. In this fear riddled place that we call home, the Media has stood resolute against all odds in defence of principle. And to those who have dedicated their vocations to the defence of human rights, let their numbers multiply manifold for it is their conscience that would free them.
