Intelligence service without 'intelligence'

Recriminations continue after the Indian terrorist attack as the nation, and the rest of the world, mourns the dead. In the case of the United States, a new emphasis on coordinated work between intelligence bodies was developed out of the 2001 tragedy.

Unfortunately, other odious trends developed such as the Bush presidency's obsession with illegal methods of waging the anti-terrorism war, with pre-emptive strikes and detentions at Guantanamo Bay. 

The question one might be inclined to ask is how competent or prepared is Botswana's intelligence agents.

The Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services (DISS) remains constrained by a number of patterns that have underlined its formation and its infant period. A number of historical facts and current dynamics mean that in its current form, the DISS could be said to be inept at protecting the people. In its first months, the institution that started operations in April remains mired in an over-extended sense of responsibility, which has led to a lack of focus on its core mandate.

The circumstances under which the DISS finds itself is perhaps the most optimum for its own inefficiency and misuse. First, it institutionally borrows from the Special Branch ,which was known for its service to narrow partisan interests. Second, it operates in a very loose legal framework.

The most important dynamic may be that the DISS has become the new 'boys with toys' as sources indicate.

It is not only known for having a free pass but it is recognised for being an outfit of the president's favourite operatives - or at least the president 's favourite man's favourite men.  Added to this is an emasculated law enforcement community, especially the police, whose roles have been usurped by an organ which at the very minimum should be facilitating their performance. 

History blights the DISS's potential to serve this country professionally and successfully. In a political system that has not changed much in both method and orientation, the DISS seems destined to become a mere re-incarnation of its failed predecessor, the Special Branch.

In his hard-hitting autobiography, The Magic of Perseverance, former cabinet minister and Botswana Democratic Party central committee member, David Member says he was shocked when he discovered, during the party's height of factional tussles, that the Special Branch, was unleashed to keep tabs on one faction of the party.

'What it meant was that our security forces were no longer serving the nation as such but were under the sway of a faction in the ruling party. This certainly, was a most troubling phenomenon especially for the internationally acclaimed democracy that we were,' he says.

A few years ago, the late opposition political legend, Kenneth Koma narrated to filmmaker Moabi Mogorosi how the intelligence body, even in the early years of the opposition, made him their favourite subject by keeping him under surveillance.

The Special Branch was often, if not always, engaged in fighting for and defending and pursuing the narrow interests of those at the heart of political power. As recent as five years ago, another faction of the BDP complained that their phones were being tapped by the Special Branch. It is under this cloud of suspicion that the DISS was formed.
Legally, the rationale for establishment of the directorate was explained as recognition of a new environment requiring much more comprehensive security institutions and legislation.

At a global level, governments, after the failure of America's intelligence community to prevent September 11, have rushed to establish new intelligence bodies and beefed up those already in existence. 

At a local level, Botswana seemed to be suggesting that there has been a new era of threats to national security and interests, hence the formation of the DISS.

'Botswana faces a number of threats or potential threats to its national security, political systems and its economy, all of which may be destabilised through subversive activities from the country's detractors,' the then Minister of Defence, Justice and Security explained when introducing the Bill that subsequently established DISS. However, the formation of the DISS was not without controversies. It was said the law was too open and would establish a body open abuse. Members of Parliament such as Dumelang Saleshando, Nehemiah Modubule, Keletso Rakhudu, and others expressed concern at the 'animal' the Bill was set to establish.

The human rights NGO Ditshwanelo and BOCONGO were much more scathing. 'While there is a need for security legislation, there is also need for clarity concerning how executive power is to be exercised.

Parliamentary oversight aimed at ensuring ethical, professional work by the Intelligence Service, would ensure that accountability.

The continuing tension between the need to protect the rights of the individual, access to information, accountability and transparency on the one hand, and the need to ensure that where necessary, secrecy obtains, can only be dealt with through a system, which recognises the centrality of the law. Without a warrant to enable intelligence work which will intrude into the lives of individuals, the state should have no right to limit the freedoms of the individual,' they warned. These concerns were not really dealt with, as the final Act proves. The reluctance of the political leadership to open up the legal environment to ensure the protection of the rights of the average citizen only heightened this mistrust. The recent debate in Parliament where MPs questioned the appointment of some individuals to the tribunal to which the public is to lodge complaints on matters related to the DISS has only added to this state of suspicion.

The point is that the DISS is going to have a hard time convincing a majority of Batswana that it exists solely to serve their interests. However the biggest challenge to the DISS remains its own inherent limitations coming out of the process through which it was put together. Sources argue that the DISS is made up of officers with a heavy influence of military intelligence.

It drew many of its founding officers from the Military Intelligence unit. The DISS is primarily supposed to be a sort of CIA of Botswana but with both a local and foreign focus. 'The primary role of the directorate will be to investigate, gather, coordinate, evaluate, correlate, interpret, disseminate and store information whether inside or outside Botswana for the purpose of detecting and identifying threats or potential threats to national security. The directorate shall make recommendations to the president in connection with policies concerning intelligence and security,'says the Act establishing DISS.

On paper at least, the spy unit is not a crack team of superior soldiers or police officers. It is expected to be a level higher, where its input is into policy. It is after the president and cabinet have processed this input that policies regarding security could be enacted. However all information reaching Mmegi indicate that DISS agents seem to be performing the role of some pseudo-crack police investigations team.

Recent reports by police officers that they were tortured by DISS officers who were supposedly investigating the disappearance of a gun shows how misdirected the efforts of the current unit is.

In both personal psychology and perhaps misplaced professional misunderstandings, the DISS officers were acting like a special unit of investigators in the police service.

However the police service has a criminal intelligence unit, whose function is to investigate cases like these. Additionally it has the Special Support Group to call on where legal use of force may be required.

Furthermore there are unconfirmed but numerous reports indicating that DISS officers are at the heart of the current shoot-outs with suspected criminals. It would perhaps explain the somewhat surprising pattern suggesting a sudden trigger-happiness on the part of the police.

A questionnaire sent out to the police service regarding the involvement of the DISS in these shoot-outs had not been answered by the time of going to print. However officers in the police service have expressed concern that the increasing involvement of DISS agents in their work has not been helpful.

Police officers who say their work is to investigate crime, arrest suspected criminals for the sole objective of bringing them to justice express worry that they seem to be turning to shortcuts in place of meticulous investigations.

They say they have to do this because often, their missions in partnership with DISS officers end up with a fight of some sort. It seems government is hell-bent in denying the police the resources necessary to enhance its ability.

Which brings us to the current situation where the DISS seems to be usurping the primary roles of other security organs. However the DISS has to be aware that in so doing, it is actually abdicating its own primary responsibilities of enhancing the abilities of these other organs and playing a central role in providing the necessary information for national leaders to make informed policies on security and intelligence issues. And in that sense, then there is nothing intelligent about the DISS in its current form.