Faulty DPP bid to seize dead man’s assets collapses
Mpho Mokwape | Monday May 25, 2026 06:00
In a recent judgment, Judge Tshekiso Tshekiso ruled that the State failed to provide proper evidence showing that the vehicle is the proceeds of crime.
The judge also criticised the prosecution for trying to withdraw the case at the eleventh hour without following court rules.
“The rules are there to guide us, and they should be followed. You cannot try to withdraw the case at the last minute without following court rules,” he said.
The case centred on a Ford Ranger double cab belonging to the late Sethomo Ronald Tlhagopi. Tlhagopi, who died in 2021, was said to have been involved in corrupt dealings connected to a government road construction tender worth more than P272 million.
According to the DPP’s court documents, Tlhagopi had been the Principal Roads Engineer responsible for sensitive information regarding the tender.
The State alleged that he secretly provided a bill of quantities to contractors from Thiite Rubble Screeners Pty Ltd, thus giving them an unfair advantage in the bidding process.
The prosecution further claimed that Tlhagopi was rewarded P200,000, which was allegedly used to buy the Ford Ranger through a chain of bank transfers involving several companies.
The State sought a civil forfeiture order, which would allow the government to permanently seize the vehicle as “proceeds of crime”.
But from the beginning, the matter faced serious procedural problems.
Justice Tshekiso noted that when the application was filed in September 2025, the registered owner of the vehicle had already been dead for nearly four years, yet the application was served on Tlhagopi’s mother before she had officially been appointed to represent the estate.
The judge explained that under Botswana law, court papers involving a deceased person must be served on the executor or administrator of the estate.
“Service of the application on the deceased’s mother was not valid service,” the judge said.
At the time the case was filed, no curator or executor had yet been appointed for the estate. The court found that there was, therefore, no proper legal service of the application.
The judgment revealed that the estate later entered the matter after Tlhagopi’s mother, Bakgadi Tlhagopi, was appointed curator bonis in November 2025.
Although the estate raised several technical legal objections, the court rejected most of them. Justice Tshekiso said some of the arguments were “overly technical” and did not serve the interests of justice.
However, the judge found major weaknesses in the State’s evidence.
One of the biggest problems was that several witness statements attached to the prosecution’s papers were unsigned and unsworn.
The statements were supposedly from people connected to the investigation, including employees, bank officials, and individuals linked to the tender process.
“These were mere statements, which were neither signed nor sworn,” the judge said.
Because the statements lacked signatures or were not sworn, the court ruled that they could not legally be treated as evidence.
The judgment explained that without signatures, there was no proof that the named individuals had actually written or approved the statements.
The court also rejected several banking and company documents relied upon by the DPP. Justice Tshekiso said the documents violated Botswana’s “best evidence rule,” which requires original or properly authenticated records.
The judge pointed out that the prosecution failed to obtain affidavits from banks or document custodians to verify the records.
“No affidavit was secured from any person from First Capital Bank stating that they had examined the entries in the statement and they are correct,” the judge said.
In the absence of admissible evidence, the court concluded that the State had failed to prove any corrupt link between the vehicle and criminal activity.
“The evidence failed to meet the necessary threshold to prove that the motor vehicle at issue was proceeds of crime,” the judge ruled.
As the case weakened, the DPP attempted to withdraw the application in February 2026 after written submissions had already been filed while the judge was drafting a judgment.
But Justice Tshekiso sharply criticised the move, stating that under High Court rules, once a matter has been set down for hearing, a party cannot simply withdraw the case without the consent of the other side or permission from the judge, which the DPP had neither.
“The notice of withdrawal was a violation of Order 47 Rule 1 and therefore a nullity,” the judge said.
The estate opposed the withdrawal and asked the court to proceed with judgment, arguing that the State was seeking to avoid an unfavourable outcome.
Justice Tshekiso agreed and proceeded to finalise the ruling. He also expressed displeasure at the amount of judicial time wasted because of the attempted withdrawal.
“This is a proper case for the award of costs on a punitive scale against the applicant,” the judge said.
As a result, the DPP was ordered to pay costs on the attorney-and-own-client scale, a punitive costs order meant to show the court’s disapproval.
In another important observation, the judge clarified that civil forfeiture proceedings under the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act are civil, not criminal.
The court noted that this case had mistakenly been registered under a criminal case category and directed that the judgment be brought to the attention of the Registrar to guide court clerks in future.
The final order dismissed the forfeiture application entirely, and for the estate of the late Sethomo Ronald Tlhagopi, the ruling was a major victory, while for the current prosecution that the public is expecting a lot from, it was a damaging setback that exposed serious weaknesses in the handling of evidence and court procedure.
In conclusion, the judgment made it clear that even in corruption-related cases, courts still require proper evidence, proper procedure, and strict compliance with the law before property can be seized by the State.