Mzwinila accuses DPP of ‘witch hunt’
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday January 19, 2026 09:48
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Kgosietsile Ngakaagae), under sections 35 and 37 of the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act (PICA), late last year approached the court seeking the restraint of an extensive portfolio of properties belonging to Mzwinila and his wife, Bridget Mzwinila. The application was brought on an urgent and ex parte basis and culminated in the grant of a rule nisi on 24 December 2025. The Mzwinilas have since filed opposing papers, both on points of law and on the merits and have equally anticipated the matter.
According to an affidavit from Chief Anti-Corruption Officer Emalerona Makgasi Mogwera, who leads the investigation, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) began its inquiry in December 2024, following an anonymous tip alleging that the Mzwinilas were living far beyond their means. She writes that the couple, married in community of property, held “a vast amount of land, vehicles, and cash”, inconsistent with any known legitimate source of income.
Mogwera further stated that in her experience as an investigator in financial crimes, when large amounts of hard cash are used to purchase property, especially under circumstances where a party can simply use the banking system, it may be to conceal or clean the tainted origins of the cash.
“Cash is commonly used in money laundering enterprises and in a case, such as this one, where a company belonging to a prominent influential person, makes such a significant purchase of close to P2 million in cash, yet fails, refuses or neglects to avail themselves to tender an explanation of the source of the cash, this creates an even further suspicion of there being a serious crime related,” she stated.
A rule nisi was issued restraining the properties returnable on 11 February 2026.
Represented by attorneys Tebogo Sebego, Samuel Plaatjie, Kaelo Taupedi and Tlhalefo Mogomotsi, the Mzwinilas state that in its core, the matter is not about the proper deployment of asset-preservation mechanisms pending prosecution. “It is about the invocation of extraordinary statutory powers in circumstances where the factual, legal, and procedural foundations for such relief are absent, and where court process has been used in a manner that undermines both fairness and the integrity of judicial adjudication,” they state.
The attorneys argue that DPP’s case is premised on an allegation that Mzwinila, while serving as Minister, influenced or participated in the award of public tenders, thereby rendering assets associated with him susceptible to restraint as alleged proceeds of crime.
“That allegation is advanced without the pleading of a single tender, without annexing a single invitation to tender, evaluation report, adjudication record, or contract, and without alleging how, when, or through what mechanism such influence could have been exercised,” they state.
This omission, they state, is not merely evidential but fundamental. They state that under Botswana’s public procurement framework, a Minister has no role whatsoever in the evaluation, adjudication, or award of tenders. They submit that those processes are undertaken by designated procurement structures in accordance with statute, and the ultimate decision-maker is the Accounting Officer, being the Permanent Secretary or the head of the relevant parastatal.
“The Minister is structurally excluded from procurement decision-making. The DPP does not allege any departure from this framework. The case is therefore built on an accusation that is incompatible with the very regulatory architecture governing public procurement,” they state.
They argue that, notwithstanding this legal impossibility, the DPP seeks to restrain virtually all of the Mzwinilas’ immovable properties, agricultural enterprises, equipment, shares, and cash without undertaking the necessary forensic exercise of explaining why each asset is allegedly tainted, how it is connected to a predicate offence, or why restraint is necessary in respect of each.
They argue that the DPP’s founding affidavit refers selectively to a handful of properties and assets, yet seeks sweeping relief untethered to pleaded facts. “It is not for this Honourable Court to select or speculate which assets should be restrained; it is for the Applicant to plead and prove the case it seeks to advance. That burden has not been met,” they submit.
The Mzwinilas argue that the application must further be considered against its procedural and factual history. They state that the DCEC has been investigating the family for over a year. In June 2025, they state DCEC conducted a search and seizure operation in which it seized extensive financial records and electronic devices, including laptops containing complete financial data and accounting software.
Yet the Applicant advances a case premised on an alleged “failure to account” without disclosing whether this seized material was examined, audited, or assessed, or whether it revealed any unexplained or unlawful funds. The Respondents are thus accused of silence while the evidentiary means to speak remain seized and unexplained in the Applicant’s possession.
The Mzwinilas accuse the DPP of not disclosing some material when they approached the Court ex parte. They state that Parallel proceedings concerning the same parties, the same investigation, and substantially the same assets remain pending before the High Court at Maun and the High Court at Gaborone.
They state that large portions of the property now sought to be “restrained” are already unlawfully seized and are the subject of extant court orders directing the cessation of such seizures and the return of property. They further state that prior investigative affidavits advancing a markedly different narrative, including allegations tied to specific assets, have since been abandoned. They state that none of this was placed before the Court.
Further, they lament the manner in which the order nisi was dealt with after it was granted, stating it further compounds these concerns. They state that rather than effecting prompt service upon the affected parties, the DPP permitted or facilitated the circulation of the court papers and allegations in the media before service had been effected.
The Mzwinilas are of the view that the application is procedurally barred by lis pendens, tainted by material non-disclosure and abuse of the ex parte process, devoid of urgency, and substantively defective. The doctrine of lis pendens is based on proposition that the dispute (lis) between the parties is being litigated elsewhere and therefore it is inappropriate for it to be litigated in the court in which the plea is raised. The policy underpinning it is that there should be a limit to the extent to which the same issue is litigated between the same parties and that it is desirable that there be finality in litigation.
“The Applicant has failed to approach this Honourable Court with clean hands. In these circumstances, the extraordinary relief sought under PICA cannot be sustained, and the rule nisi ought not to be discharged and the DPP and DCEC ordered to pay costs on a punitive scale,” they submit.