Judge warns against monetising access to public offices
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday November 5, 2025 06:00
This came as Justice Reuben Lekorwe dismissed a P5 million claim by a former Botswana Defence Force officer who said a Chinese-owned construction company, China Jiangsu International Botswana, had promised him a bonus for helping it get off a government blacklist.
Justice Lekorwe, in his warning, referenced the argument by the plaintiff, Gaseikanngwe Peke, a former Brigadier General who was employed by the company as a security adviser after his retirement, told the court that he was promised P5 million if he managed to persuade the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services (DIS) to lift a ban preventing the company from tendering for government projects.
According to the judgment, he had said he used his contacts within the security sector and worked with retired Brigadier Thulaganyo Masisi to arrange meetings with senior officials, including DIS Director General Peter Magosi, something the judge pointed out was 'unethical' for trying to monetise access to public office.
The company was eventually removed from the blacklist in October 2020, and the plaintiff then demanded the promised P5 million, saying the agreement was made orally in addition to his written employment contract.
In his ruling, Justice Lekorwe warned about the ethical implications of the arrangement.
“This was clearly a case where access to public office or public officers was being used to earn revenue. Public officers must be accessible without payments or favours. Public officers should be easily and freely accessible to promote public trust and accountability. Public interest must be prioritised over personal gain,” he said.
Justice Lekorwe added that it would be wrong for any person to use financial influence to gain an advantage in dealing with government institutions.
He agreed with evidence from Brigadier Masisi, who admitted feeling ' unethical' for participating in meetings arranged to secure the company’s delisting.
The judge said such conduct risks eroding confidence in public institutions and, in the end, he dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiff had not proven his entitlement to the bonus.
However, the company also escaped a costs order, as the judge found it partly responsible for engaging in what he described as a 'stained and unethical arrangement'. The judgment was delivered at Lobatse High Court on October 28, 2025.