It is probably true that everybody across the country and all over the world is wondering what the truth about this case is. Will the truth ever be known and what will be regarded as the truth. In a democratic society the truth will be what shall have been determined by the recognised and respected judicial process. The judicial process is however sometimes short-circuited by technicalities which would then introduce technical truth as opposed to real and or absolute truth.
Whatever definition we can give to “truth” the most important is what the verdict will be at the end of the process.
I have read with keen interest what various writers have said about this case. Others have said that they have confidence in the system and have so far applauded the system for handling the matter in the way it did, that the former Minister was investigated, charged and prosecuted by departments under his portfolio ministry and all went well without any apparent interference from the Minister. This has been argued that it gives credence to Botswana in the respect for the rule of law and democracy in general.
Others have said it is not Seretse alone on trial but the country as well. This view lends itself to the notion that Botswana has been known for its zero tolerance to corruption and respect for the rule of law. Therefore the outcome will, if guilty taint the image of the country while confirming its zero tolerance for corruption. On the other hand a not guilty verdict coupled with the pre-trial processes that were unencumbered by official interference would confirm the respect for the rule of law and the justice system.
Others have concluded that the minister will run free because of the inadequacy of the law. The absurdity of this view is that they appear to be using some other measure other than the law to determine the guilt or innocence of a person. One such writer said in the Gazette of 8th-14th September 2010 at page 15 that “Ndelu Seretse and Ian Khama government should on no account be exonerated by the public”. The writer further suggests that the state has a weak case and one would want to believe he says so pitting the State’s case against the law but then goes on to say justice must be found outside the law and inviting the public not to respect their laws. If this view is to have any credence then it should have as its premise on a spiritual realm. He is however not any nearer to such as he does not imply so and his tone is so vile and uncharacteristic of one to have a basis in the spiritual realm.
Whatever our definition of truth is it must be capable of objective measurement. Objective measurement would require some recognised and acceptable standards. These may not be acceptable to all but they should surely reflect the values of the general society.
In our society one is innocent until proven guilty and this will be determined by using the recognised standards.
At the end of this case one should be able to say, “Ndelu Seretse was corrupt; he failed to declare to the relevant authorities his interests in a private company; he participated in a tender adjudication process in which his company was involved; or he used information known to him as a minister to benefit his company against others. OR say the opposite.
To be able to say either of the above truths some standard will have been used and this is the law. The law will protect the public and equally protect an accused person and is the only standard that can be used to bring about any form of objectivity where there are opposing positions.
Dithapelo Keorapetse, says that ministers and senior government officials should be barred from doing business with government as they are privy to information which they may use to advantage their companies and those of their friends and families. I would not stop here I would say MPs as well as they discuss and approve budgets and programmes. The remedy however is not in this suggestion but rather in the one where he calls for appropriate law to be enacted if the current law is inadequate. He must, however, remember that even with the new law guilt or innocence will not be based on some personal whims but standards as would be set by such law.
I would like to applaud the former minister for resigning when faced with a charge of this nature. To have resigned earlier on the basis of allegations that were seemingly politically motivated would have not been wise. He had a choice of being pushed out by his principal and this would have disgraced him but he took a principled and exemplary decision.
Let us await the truth and embrace it when it finally comes. There is a saying that the truth hurts. If it will hurt him if guilty so be it as it will please the public and the nation who would have been wronged by his actions. The public would, however, not and should not be hurt by his innocence in the matter as that is what it wants for the innocent.
