My country could go the way of other African countries

WHITHER BOTSWANA
DAN MOABI | Friday December 12, 2008 00:00

This was apparently done as part of an exercise to identify those who had stolen a service rifle, which was later used to commit robberies in a nearby village. This raises the question: why should the intelligence service, which is supposed to be concerned with protecting a broad spectrum of national interests, involve itself in a narrow criminal investigation of this nature, which should clearly be the exclusive responsibility of the police service?

Admittedly, the two services will need to cooperate with each other from time to time, but not on a straightforward police issue of this type.  
The second report was about a gathering of police officers that was addressed by the minister responsible for defence and security, at which the minister had to parry frank and embarrassing questions regarding some members of the public who had complained to the police about having been tortured, presumably by intelligence agents who had described themselves to their victims as police officers.

Faced with such embarrassment, the poor minister could only express regret about the alleged incidents, and vaguely promise to have them investigated. He also attributed the uncomplimentary incidents, together with the one described in the preceding paragraph, to possible institutional jealousy between the intelligence service and the police, which he deplored.

On reading about these incidents at the time, I felt a deep sense of anger and revulsion that my country might be starting to go the way of other African countries that had abused intelligence agencies to brutalise rather than protect their populations from external and internal enemies.

At the same time, however, I was deeply delighted that the victims of the alleged atrocities had at least spoken out about their bitter experiences. I felt this way because in my view, the worst possible thing that could happen regarding such violations of human rights would be for the victims to be so intimidated as to decide to suffer in silence.

That would certainly be the beginning of the end for the sense of freedom and safety from acts of brutality that have prevailed in this country so far. We should, therefore, firmly resolve both individually and collectively that under no circumstances should we ever let this happen to us.

Given such strong views, some readers might wonder why I was among the few who supported the introduction of the intelligence service when the relevant legislation was debated in the National Assembly.

As I indicated at the time, I did so because in this day and age, no nation can afford to exist without an intelligence agency. For any nation to try to do so would be to expose itself to all sorts of extreme dangers. But in supporting the proposed legislation, I always warned against the danger of abuse, for whatever reason, that is inherent in all legislation of this type.

I even proposed, as a possible safeguard against such abuse, incorporation in the proposed legislation of a requirement for judicial review before the proposed agency could engage in acts that could violate the civil rights of individuals or organisations. If I remember well, something along these lines was considered by the authorities, but with the proviso that judicial intervention should only be considered in non-urgent cases.

I felt that such a proviso would be ridiculous at it would simply encourage the intelligence agency to declare each such case urgent, thus easily defeating the purpose of the legislative provision.

Whichever way this particular issue was finalised, the relevant legislation also set up a tribunal to review public complaints against the activities of the intelligence agency. This was a welcome development. However, I find the composition of the tribunal extremely disappointing.

It has, in fact, been widely argued that all three members of the tribunal are members of the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP).
While I'm unable to vouch for the party-political alignment of all three members, a key member of the tribunal (the attorney) is a known member of the central committee of the BDP.

This is not only laughable, but also irretrievably undermines the entire credibility of the tribunal. Even worse, it's a gross insult to our collective intelligence.  It also raises serious questions about the judgment and the commitment to democracy of our government, as well as the real purpose of the intelligence agency itself.

Also of concern to me is the fact that one of the members of the tribunal is a former head of the defunct special branch of the police service, which played a similar role to that of the current intelligence agency.

There's a danger that the member could tend to hold views sympathetic to those of the intelligence organisation, thus further undermining the intended purpose of the tribunal.  There's thus a clear, urgent need to device more credible and more effective ways of overseeing the DISS.