Let justice, not politics determine Salakae’s fate
Mmegi Editor | Friday August 21, 2026 10:49
“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
-Lord Hewart
His decision was the correct one.
The move neither proves guilt nor settles the serious allegations that have brought him to the doorstep of the Regional Magistrate’s Court.
It does, however, recognise a basic principle of accountable government, that a minister facing criminal charges should not remain in a position that could create even the appearance of influence over State institutions. That distinction matters. Salakae is entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like any other accused person. His political office must not make him guilty in the public mind before evidence is heard.
Neither should his former status shield him from the ordinary processes of the law. On August 28, the court must deal with facts, not political loyalties, social-media verdicts or the drama surrounding his departure from Cabinet. The charges are grave and concern public power, public money and a major road contract. It involves the taxpayer’s money. Therefore, Batswana deserve a prosecution based on credible evidence, presented openly and tested fairly. Salakae has alleged malice from the charges and he is sensing sinister motives. As a result, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) must understand that this case will measure more than its ability to secure charges. It will test public confidence in an institution long criticised as either weak against powerful people or vulnerable to political direction. Its answer to Salakae’s accusations cannot end with a press statement insisting that it acts impartially. It must show that impartiality through a lawful investigation, properly obtained evidence and respect for the rights of every accused person. Successful anti-corruption work is not defined by dramatic raids, leaks or prominent names appearing in court, but it is defined by professional investigations capable of surviving judicial scrutiny.
At the same time, Salakae’s claim that the DCEC and Directorate of Intelligence and Security were weaponised must not be accepted as fact merely because it was delivered from the floor of Parliament.
It is a serious allegation and requires evidence. His complaints about the raid on his home, the treatment of his family and alleged leaks should be examined through the proper legal and oversight channels.
If investigators abused their powers, there must be consequences. If the claims are unfounded, they should not be allowed to weaken legitimate anti-corruption work. The Umbrella for Democratic Change government must also resist the temptation to treat the resignation as proof that its accountability promise has been fulfilled. Stepping aside is only the minimum expected in these circumstances.
The greater test is whether the government will protect the independence of investigators, prosecutors and the courts, even when the process becomes politically painful. It must also strengthen safeguards against political interference and unlawful disclosure of investigative information. This case should not become a contest between Salakae’s supporters and opponents. It is a test of whether Botswana can investigate power without fear, prosecute without favour and judge without pressure. Let the charge sheet speak. Let the defence challenge it. Let the court decide.