Monday, November 4, 2024

Who is Sayeed Jamali?

Google Sayeed Jamali on your computer and the monitor screen responds with: “your search ÔÇô Sayeed Jamali – did not match any documents”. This is internetese for Sayeed who?

While lesser investors have had full media treatment, the man believed to be Botswana’s biggest land baron has so far managed to slip under the radar. The self made multi-millionaire with 713 plots in Gaborone to his name at the last count in 2002 probably prefers it that way. While it would be unfair to whisper the phrase “behind every great fortune there is a great crime” at the mention of Jamali’s name, if you followed the money, it leads to some questionable land deals.

Jamali amassed his wealth during the free for all late 1990s and early 2000s when systems were lax and government officials allocated land under questionable circumstances. The Lesetedi Land Commission, which was tasked with investigating questionable land dealing into state allocations in Gaborone in 2004, observed that, “from the small pool of applications which we have dealt with, it may well be that what we have come across is a reflection of an even wide picture within the urban areas as the allocation of these large plots under the so called direct allocation system would have been passing through the same officials. To put it differently, this could be just the tip of an iceberg.”

During its inquiry, the Lesetedi Commission came across a number of allocations to Universal Builder (Botswana) (Pty) Ltd and associated companies in which Jamali was the majority shareholder. The commission questioned the allocations of two civic and community plots in Block Six to Jamali’s companies in 1999. The plots “although being civic and community did not go through SLAAC and did not go through any competitive tender. It has also not been shown that Universal Builders provided any conceptual project proposal for those plots which was worth any critical evaluation”, states the report.

Asked why Universal Builders was allocated the land in this way, former Principal Land Officer, Andrew Rugaiganisa said it was because the land was not fully serviced. The commission argues that, “this of course is not supported by any letter of application itself which shows that the infrastructure had been done. Secondly this explanation fails to grasp the reality that a developer, aware that it could purchase civic and community land within its area might, before fully servicing the area, take advantage of the laxity of the system and apply for civic and community plots at that stage with the advantage of not having to face any competition”.

In 2002, Universal Builders whose trade appeared to be in the building construction and allied businesses was allocated a civic and community plot for a primary school in Block 7.

The Lesetedi report points out that: “In their evidence the officials in the Department of Lands were not able to point out any consideration in applications for allocation of plots to private persons for building schools. Asked why a construction company was allocated a plot to build and run a primary school all that the officials could give was that it had the capacity to build. There is nothing to show that the construction company had the background, experience or capacity to manage and run a school. That there was a need for the allocation of an English Medium primary school plot in the area and whether the community needs had been assessed to indicate whether such need was greater than those for a public primary school.”

It further emerges in the report that Minister Margaret Nasha, who was the new Minister of Lands and Housing, “approved the recommendation whilst she clearly had reservations on this allocation. In her evidence she indicated that she felt her hands were tied as this was a replacement allocation for an allocation approved by another minister”.

Another allocation to Jamali’s company, which was questioned by the Lesetedi Commission, was the land in Gaborone West for the Westgate Complex. “During hearing of oral evidence the Department of Lands officials were asked to indicate under which procedure the allocation was being made and whether it was not appropriate that this plot should have been advertised or put to tender.
Rugaiganisa’s response was that there was no procedure to this particular type of allocation except the direct allocation system…The commission is of the view that the piece of land ought to have been put to tender to allow for greater public participation. The procedure adopted does not appear transparent and there ought to have been established appraisal considerations for applications of this nature which ought to have been available to any applicant so that such applicant could formulate his application with the full awareness of what was required.

During the oral evidence, there were suggestions that Rugaiganisa had a close personal and professional relationship with Jamali. However, while giving evidence as a recall witness before the commission, Rugaiganisa said he was never too close to Jamali and treated him like any client.

He denied that Jamali used to spend a lot of time in his office while still employed by the Department of Lands between 1998 and 2002. He told the commission that his office door was open to everyone, and he could not count the number of times Jamali visited his office. Rugaiganisa said he was not contradicting the evidence of his former junior, Hendricks Banda who had earlier told the commission that the two men were very close. He said what worried him was that Banda had forgotten what transpired and wanted to put him on the “firing line.” Rugaiganisa admitted to the commission that he had done work for Jamali after he left the Lands Department, but argued that, “as a property person, I had approached various property developers. We were not very friendly”, he said.

Another controversial allocation to Jamali was the industrial plot Lot 20583 which Jamali proposed to use for a manufacturing plant. A few months later Jamali applied for an additional piece of land, Lot 20592, saying the piece of land he had been allocated was not enough to accommodate his project. The application was initially rejected because it was believed the land already allocated would suffice for Jamali’s project because the urban development standard allow for high rise developments. The decision was later reversed and the commission concluded that, “the allocation of this land was not made in an accountable manner”.

The other controversial allocation is that of a block of land for servicing and development in Maru A pula which is now the subject of a criminal case against the developer. The case is scheduled to be heard in court in three weeks.

When he appears in court in two week’s time, Jamali will see next on him on the dock a certain Victor Rantshabeng.

The two are not altogether strangers.

For a long time a senior civil servant in the Department of Lands, Rantshabeng would have come across Jamali the latter’s frequent visits to solicit Gaborone land portions for his many estate development projects.

After lengthy investigations spanning almost a decade, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime has reached a conclusion that Jamali had played a role in corrupting Rantshabeng who in turn is accused of failing to disclose his personal interests in Jamali’s operations as he advised ministers who were authorizing land sales to Jamali and his companies.

RELATED STORIES

Read this week's paper