Minister’s ‘missing’ imprest lands secretary in trouble
Spira Tlhankane | Monday September 1, 2025 06:00
The money for the minister’s imprest and utilities had been encashed from the government revenue office for use by the Assistant Minister, but he ever received it. According to the court, Lebengwa, the appellant in the matter, was employed by the government of Botswana as a Senior Executive Secretary at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, based in Gaborone, and was entrusted with funds to pass on to the Assistant Minister.
The appellant alleged that she kept it in a drawer and found it missing, and suspected that other colleagues who had access to the drawer might have taken it. The matter was escalated to the Permanent Secretary. The appellant made an undertaking to repay the money. She wrote a letter to the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Trade and Industry dated November 3, 2009, agreeing to pay the sum that went missing while in her possession.
When Lebengwa failed to pay the money per her undertaking, the Attorney General instituted civil proceedings against her. A summons for the recovery of the money was issued out of a Magistrate's court in Gaborone. Lebengwa filed an appearance to defend and a plea, resulting in the matter going for trial. The AG led evidence, and so did the appellant. Upon the conclusion of the trial, judgment was granted in favour of the AG. Lebengwa was ordered to pay the amount of P 4 422.50 to the AG.
Lebengwa was not happy with the decision of the Magistrate's Court and appealed to the High Court. Her appeal was dismissed. The Appellant’s appeal to the CoA is founded because the court a quo erred as a matter of law and of fact when it held that the funds in question, which the Appellant received, were public funds which the Appellant received in her official capacity. Lebengwa also argued that collecting funds on behalf of the Minister was not part of her official duties/ job description and that she agreed to receive the funds as a courtesy.
She said that the funds in question are not public funds and the court erred in so finding. Lebengwa also pointed out that the normal procedure in transmitting public funds was not followed, that nowhere in the evidence was it stated that the appellant is a revenue collector or appointed to collect government revenue.
“The appellant seeks this court to say that yes, she worked as Executive Secretary in the Ministry; yes, she received the money on behalf of the Assistant Minister; yes, she did not pass the money to the Minister for whatever reason. That was because it was not within her job description to handle government money, and because the money was given to her in violation of Financial Instructions on handling public funds, she had no duty to pay it back. That argument is untenable. Travel expenses disbursed to public officers to be spent in performance of public duties are public funds, whether you call them refunds or advice. The funds were handed to the appellant as a conduit to her principal. They were taken from public coffers for the performance of public duties. The funds never landed in the hands of the Assistant Minister. There is no need to split hairs on definitions of public funds. There is a similar need to swim in the muddied waters and ask if she was employed as a revenue collector and whether receiving funds on behalf of the Minister was part of her job description,” CoA’s Justice Lot Moroka said when he dismissed Lebengwa’s appeal recently.
Moroka added that, thus, both justice and law coincide to demand that the appellant must return the funds to where she got them.
The factual basis for the payment is known and not tainted with any illegality. For all intents and purposes, the document is an acknowledgment of a debt lawfully enforceable. The common law has remedies for restoring the equilibrium and preventing both lawlessness and disrepute to the administration of justice by rewarding unjust enrichment. The appeal cannot succeed,” Moroka emphasised.