The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) has moved to reinstate a matter that had already been settled by the courts, a leaked charge sheet indicates.
The matter, which had already been concluded before the courts looks set to be revived under the direction of DCEC Deputy Director Thabo Malambane. The decision is expected to spark debate within legal circles with some expected to question the propriety of reopening proceedings that were disposed of through the judicial process.
Court records show that the case had reached finality after adjudication, effectively bringing the dispute to a legal close. However, sources familiar with the developments say internal moves were initiated to place the matter back on the roll, triggering concern among defence lawyers and governance observers.
Efforts to obtain comment from Malambane were unsuccessful. Multiple calls placed to his mobile phone went unanswered at the time of publication. Efforts to get a comment from Seretse also bore no fruit.
The renewed prosecution drive has also drawn attention to the role previously played by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. At the time the case was before court, the head of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (Botswana) was Kgosietsile Ngakaagae.
The renewed prosecution drive has also drawn attention to the role previously played by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. At the time the case was before court, the head of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (Botswana) was Kgosietsile Ngakaagae.
Ngakaagae had formerly acted as legal counsel for Bakang Seretse.
It remains unclear what new grounds the DCEC intends to rely upon in seeking to reinstate the matter.
It is understood that the principle of finality that there must be an end to legal disputes is a cornerstone of Botswana’s justice system. Critics warn that attempts to revive settled cases without clear legal basis could set a troubling precedent and expose the State to further litigation including potential claims of abuse of process.
As of press time, no formal public statement had been issued explaining the legal basis for the reinstatement effort. It also remains to be seen whether the courts will entertain the renewed proceedings or whether the defence will challenge the move as procedurally irregular.
