Was ‘Butterfly’ DIS bait?
Sharon Mathala - Mpho Mokwape | Monday September 26, 2022 06:00
The case regarded by many as involving alleged treasonable attempts across borders and some powerful individuals within the country brought so much public scrutiny of State organs. Maswabi, codenamed Butterfly was one of the spy unit’s top agents until the unit leveled allegations against her involvement in the P100 billion alleged to have been smuggled out of Bank of Botswana coffers.She was subsequently dramatically arrested at one of the spy unit's offices at the Commerce park area in Gaborone and taken in for questioning.
The Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) strictly went after Butterfly despite alleging that she was part of other people that moved the same alleged money. In the case, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) investigator Jako Hubona’s affidavit made claims that Maswabi had so much control and access to three special accounts belonging to the Botswana Government, which were all outside Botswana. “Investigations revealed Maswabi had access to the three special accounts which its sources are from the government coffers through foreign investments. It was shocking because she is not a person to deal in government accounts. She is just an employee,” read Hubona's affidavit at the time. Hubona having claimed that Maswabi who travelled a lot during her working days explained that the said accounts were used to move funds from one account to another in countries such as Hong Kong. A certain amount, which was alleged to have been transferred by Maswabi to former DIS boss, Isaac Kgosi was the P48 million allegedly discussed during one of their love conversations.
Hubona indicated that according to conversations between the pair, Kgosi had reminded Maswabi not to forget to transfer the money and claimed that on July 20, 2009 a hefty amount was transferred from one of the special accounts to a bank account in Hong Kong. Maswabi was not the only one pinpointed by Hubona in his supposed investigations , as former president Ian Khama, Kgosi and South African businesswoman Bridgette Motsepe-Radebe were all linked to the high profile allegations of the stolen billions. Despite that, only Maswabi became the centre of the allegations and all the other names were never charged leaving many questions as to what was really the motive behind her arrest.
Was she just bait?
In recent times contradictions have taken centre stage in the same case with those who were involved not coming out clear as to why she was the only one targeted and charged. Could she has been just a bait for the DIS in trying to pin high profile individuals? This is the question that now lingers around as it has been established numerous times that the case was brought out without following due diligence and also on fabricated evidence.
The very same people who were said to have bestowed so much power on Maswabi and even gave her the bold authority to move millions for them, were never charged, and why were they never targeted the same way she was?
Clear to the naked eye is that Maswabi was just used as a bait to rattle those whom the spy unit was really after. As such, Maswabi was just a small fish in a big pond and it continues to show as many have come out to reiterate that indeed the evidence was not as per the standard to bring about a prosecution.
First it was SA legal hawk, Gerrie Nel who made it pretty clear that the case was headed for a disaster right from the beginning with so many things not having been done right from the start. At the time, he advised the State to withdraw the case made it clear that the only saving grace for the State was to retrace its steps, start all over again with a different manner of approach so as not to continuously prejudice the accused any further. “The case lacked what is known as the basics of prosecution which is simply getting the proper evidence to be able to make informed decisions about the case and its prosecution,” he said.
High Court Judge Zein Kebonang was next in line to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. He made it clear that the case was prosecuted on fabricated evidence.
Meanwhile,suspended DCEC director general, Tymon Katlholo in his fight with the DIS said the spy unit had been abusing its power especially in respect to investigations on ‘Butterfly’ case. Recent time, Chief Justice Terence Rannowane also admitted that the case was such an embarrassment for the judiciary and caused such a reputational and professional damage not only locally.
How the butterfly case was formulated?
A key figure in the case is the lead investigator Hubona. Hubona who now faces a charge of defamation against Maswabi could have also been used by the powers that be for their own gain. According to a letter seen by Mmegi , dated September 12, 2019 signed by the then DG Joseph Mathambo , Hubona was instructed by Mathambo to head a special task force team to investigate the “Butterfly” criminal case.
The letter reads in parts; “in line with the provisions of section 19B (1) of the same act, you are required to adhere to a strict code of secrecy and or confidentiality as required of an officer of the DCEC.” According to our source the task team involved FIA, BURS, DCEC, DPP, DIS and Police. Hubona was then given a document of intelligence, which together with the team, they were supposed to interrogate.
Mmegi is also in possession of the intelligence docket given to Hubona by Mathambo. But before they could event start the investigations sometime in October 17th 2019, the investigating team was summoned to the DPP office, an affidavit and a charge sheet had been formulated. They were instructed t sign. “The officers were then told that a certain Priscilla Israel had the evidence and was making her way from South Africa and that the charge sheet needed to be drafted and effected. They did so and the next morning Butterfly was arrested,” said our source.
“Even Hubona’s affidavit is just based on intelligence and not actual evidence. The investigators had explicitly told them that they needed three more years to investigate the matter but they refused,” our source added. On the same day Butterfly was questioned and detained at the Old Naledi Police station overnight, “The next morning the team together with butterfly went to her house in Block 7 to search her house. Whilst there, the team received a call that they had to bring butterfly to court for arraignment.” According to our source all this while the investigating team had told Israel that they did not have enough to work on. They told her that they only had intelligence and that a full docket analysis needed to be done. The charge sheet was signed by one Susan Mangori and rubber-stamped by the then acting DPP, Leinaeng.
Mmegi reached Mangori for comment to find out if she had fully satisfied herself before signing off the charge sheet to which she responded, “Yes I signed the charge sheet but I am not at liberty to discuss Government matters with the media. Please contact the relevant office.” “Israel kept deferring the matter and never provided the evidence she had said she had. They then claimed that South Africa was not cooperating with them. But all the while Butterfly had been charged and there was a case before court,” our source said.
Adding further our source says the state genuinely had a case before it; he only advised that they shouldn’t have rushed the matter to court. Mmegi further reached out to Israel about the allegations and although reluctant to comment saying she does not make statements on behalf of the DPP, Israel still strongly beliefs they had a case against Butterfly. For his part Hubona also refused to comment citing that he was still a Government employee and directed Mmegi to Government public relations.
The former DCEC DG, Mathambo also refused to comment saying “I am not longer at the DCEC and as such cannot comment on anything that has to do with the DCEC.” This week Mmegi also called Advocate Nel for his comment on the pronouncements made by the CJ, Nel this time turned down our interview saying that he was just contracted by the DPP and he cannot speak on their behalf.