Moagi questions State's selective prosecution

Larona Makhaiza | Monday June 22, 2026 15:28

 

Prosecutor’s state in the charge sheet that on or about April 17, 2024, the former minister accepted P4.7 million from New Energy Company Pty Ltd, via Wisecreatives Investments Pty Ltd. They argue this was a reward for issuing prospecting licences in Gantsi, Tsabong, and Tutume to New Energy. In the second case, Moagi faces two counts of corruption and money laundering.

During cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) Ngiye Ngiye, defence attorney Tengo Rubadiri pressed on what he described as inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Particularly around the decision-making process that led to Moagi’s charges.

The defence pointed to allegations of abuse of office, referenced in IO’s testimony, questioning why the charge sheet now reflects corruption. In response, IO maintained that charging decisions rested solely with the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Tensions rose when the defence questioned whether the DPP may have formed a different legal opinion from investigators based on the evidence gathered.

“I did my part, and the DPP did its part,” IO Ngiye bemoaned. A key point in the defence’s cross-examination centred on the controversial eight prospecting licences awarded to Chinese-owned New Energy. IO conceded that the company had indeed applied for the licences and qualified for them, as confirmed by Ministry of Minerals and Energy official Matlhogonolo Samuel.

The defence further highlighted that the licences have neither been terminated nor withdrawn, arguing that this suggested the process itself was lawful. The defence also revisited an earlier State indication made in January that more suspects could be charged once investigations were complete, questioning why that had not happened.

“It was indicated that on January 20, a plea should not be taken from my client, as more people will be charged. Did you question Zheng Li?” asked the defence. The state attorney Ambrose Mubika quickly objected to the question, arguing that the defence should only stick to the facts and matters were beyond the witness’ scope. “As DPP, we confine ourselves to what might happen, and all that is internal affairs. Ngiye is not part of those. So he cannot answer that question,” the state argued. The trial is set to continue on June 24 as the defence considers filing an application for no case to answer. The case continues.