Unless something extraodinary happens, sentencing proceedings on convicted Rre Carter Morupisi are expected to get underway this morning at the Gaborone High Court where Judge Chris Gabanagae will be the presiding officer. Morupisi stands to be sentenced upon conviction on two counts of corruption and one on money laundering. On the first and second counts on corruption he was charged, tried and convicted on ‘Corruption contrary to Section 24 (A) (1) of Corruption and Economic Crime Act, Laws of Botswana as read with Section 24(A)(3) of Corruption and Economic Crime Act’. On count two still on corruption, he was charged, tried and convicted on ‘Corruption contrary to Section 26 of the Corruption and Economic Crime Act as read with Section 36 of the same Act’. He was also charged, tried and convicted on ‘Money laundering contrary to Section 47(1)(b) of the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime punishable under Section 47 (3) of the same Act’.
Section 36 of the Corruption and Economic Crime Act provides that any person convicted on corruption under this Act is liable to imprisonment ‘for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding P 500,000 or both’. Under the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act of 2014, conviction on money laundering ‘attracts a sentence of a fine not exceeding P 20,000,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years or both’. By any measure, sentences to charges upon which he is convicted are steep in terms of both the length in custody and the fines. Worsening the situation is that Gabanagae J could impose both the sentences and the fines given that the law allows him to do so. Faced with such potential steep sentences in all their facets, any convicted person would pray for all possible leniency through strong and compelling mitigating factors. But lo and behold, Morupisi has hinted that he won’t mitigate. I was taken aback why Morupisi would elect not to mitigate given his precarious circumstances. But that is his choice and I believe he has a good reason for it.
It will be recalled Morupisi gave an unsown evidence during his trial through which he could not be cross examined by the prosecutor. The believe for doing so is that he did not want to expose himself to a situation where the true facts about his case could be exposed to a point where he could collapse under intense cross examination. It is widely held that when the accused gives unsown statement or evidence, courts attach very little weight at all to such because it is suspected something is being hidden. The impact of unsown evidence I want to believe becomes disadvantageous than had it been a sworn one.
With these two issues evidently and likely poised to work against Morupsi, it leaves the prosecution with the sole advantage to address Gabanagae J on aggravating factors to the detriment of Morupisi. The prosecution is going to argue that he is not remorseful to the offences for which he has been charged and convicted-that on its own will be an aggravating factor against him; that failure to mitigate and while it is his right to do so is tantamount to giving court ‘a middle finger’ in terms of I don’t care attitude. As a consequence, the prosecution will ask Gabanagae J to impose the stiffest sentence.
With mitigation out of the way, it will effectively be up to the judge to determine the appropriate sentence. But before doing so, he will probably consider the following: whether the accused has demonstrated remorse. Remorse is not a prerequisite for convicted persons. It is however in the broader context of sentencing an important factor some would argue. The other factor to be considered is the severity of the offence and whether the accused played a prominent role in its commission. As demonstrated by the severity of the sentences when one is convicted of corruption and money laundering, it goes without saying the offences are severe. From the evidence before the judge and particularly how the property at the centre of the corruption being the luxurious land cruiser was procured and eventually landed in Morupisi’s possession, it is reasonable to conclude Morupisi knew very well about its pre and post procurement. It was driven into Botswana by his confidante Rapula Okaile.
Gabanagae J will not be oblivious to the scourge of runaway corruption whose deleterious consequences are felt particularly by the ordinary man on the street in more ways than one. Everyone in position of power and authority together with ordinary Batswana have for time immemorial called upon those whose offices allow them to deal with corruption to do so. This shamelessly and sadly has not been forthcoming. This weekend’s Weekend Post newspaper reports that P 30 billion has been lost through corruption in the last 10 years. This is huge, telling and frightening but not surprising! It is generally agreed that high value corruption is propagated by persons occupying high positions in the political, public and private spheres. Most if not all persons involved in the corruption of the P 30 billion referred herein are still comfortable behind their desks.
The Directorate of Public Prosecutions whose part mandate is to prosecute persons who would have fallen on the wrong side of the law, has been losing most of the high profile corruption cases through demonstrable ineptitude in so far as intensely and properly investigating corruption and other matters. While this is so, it stands to be acknowledged that the Morupisi corruption matter has been properly investigated owing to the evidence placed before Gabanagae J.
It is my considered view that Gabanagae J will pronounce a custodial sentence commensurate with Morupisi’s circumstances. Of particular importance in the sentencing message will be the message that courts are more than prepared to apply the law to the fullest in order to nip corruption in the bud. It is more than a foregone conclusion that the land cruiser will be reverted back to the Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund through whose money it was unlawfully acquired. That notwithstanding, it does not take away the serious, high value corruption perpetuated by Morupisi and his enablers out of the way. That said, stern and commensurate punishment must be meted in the interest of justice. From where I stand, there is no justifiable excuse why a fairly long custodial sentence should not be so meted out as a consequence of the seriousness of the offences. Morupisi has through the evidence led in court betrayed not only the civil servants’ pension fund to which their lives are intrinsically tied post their employment, but the most important public office with its inherent power and authority he held immediately prior to his trial and subsequent conviction.
When all is said and done, I am looking forward to Gabanagae J to pronouncement a sentence that fits the punishment of the criminal conduct of Morupisi. I argue very strongly about the undesirability of a suspended sentence because that will not in my view be a deterrent to corruption and other high value crimes. With corruption evidently out of control because the executive arm of government has decided to conveniently talk about it as opposed to decisively acting against it, courts have in the process become the nation’s last resort. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself!
