Nchindogate takes another turn

TSHIRELETSO MOTLOGELWA
Staff Writer | Tuesday August 24, 2010 00:00

 

Nkate dumped the prosecution when he declared, contrary to his affidavit, that his allocation of Plot 55720 to Nchindo's company was not influenced by anyone else.

The two main charges against Nchindo, Joe Matome and the company, Tourism Development Consortium relate to the presentation made to former president Festus Mogae and cabinet.  The presentations are alleged to have influenced Mogae and cabinet to mistake Nchindo's company for a Debswana initiative and thus grant it allocation of the disputed land.  Yesterday Nkate took centre stage when the defence used his statement to argue that the allocation was not related to the presentations. Nkate in his evidence during cross examination argued that when he made the allocation he did so independent of anyone's input.   The defence in the Nchindo corruption trial says the state's case is now without merit and has called for their clients to be acquitted and discharged.   In support of the defence's application yesterday morning, defence lead advocate Craig Webster said the charges against his clients can no longer be sustained because of lack of evidence.

'There is no evidence in every count upon which a reasonable person might convict,' argued Webster.   He said although charge 1 and 2 relate to an alleged presentation Nchindo made to former president Festus Mogae and to cabinet, which is said to have influenced them to support the allocation of Plot 55720 to TDC, the state has failed to provide the link between the presentation and the allocation of the piece of land.

Matome and Nchindo are said to have led Mogae and cabinet into believing that TDC Pty Ltd was a vehicle for Debswana to enter into the tourism business when in fact it was not. Webster argued that misrepresentation did not occur since there was no reference to the company TDC Pty Ltd during the presentations.

'Have you looked at the presentation made to Mogae?' Moroka quipped, to which Webster retorted, 'Mogae speaks of a tourism development consortium not to a company by that name'. Webster took time to explain that there was a difference between a tourism development consortium which was referred to in the presentations and was known as a Debswana project and the specific company Tourism Development Consortium Pty Ltd which was later allegedly revealed to have been Nchindo's company. The prosecution has often argued that this confusion created by Nchindo and his partners was a deliberate part of the plot meant to mislead.

In the matter of the allocation of Plot 55720, Webster argued that since there was no evidence brought forward to show that the allocation was related to the presentations it could not be argued that the allocation was a result of the presentation. He said  Nkate who was Minister of Lands had told court that he did the allocation without relying on anyone else. 'Ultimately he said the decision lay with him. The Debswana vehicle is of no consequence. He said having considered everything before him he made the allocation. He confirmed that the allocation was made to TDC,' he concluded.

Webster said he would not debate Nkate's credibility because his evidence had not been questioned.   Counts four and five deal with forgery relating to a resolution written by Nchindo Jnr and Matome, with the late Nchindo Snr, for TDC Pty Ltd when the company did not exist. Webster said the state had failed to prove what each one of his clients did, adding that in fact the forgery was never fully proven since 'intention' was never proved.  He concluded that both count 6 and 7 should be dismissed since the state has failed to prove there was a conspiracy hatched by the accused and that Plot 3084 was sold illegally to Nchindo.

He said Debswana was to use its discretion to sell the property to anyone and they need not be the highest bidders. He said that is why the company had suggested that if they were not offering the property to Nchindo they could instead offer it to the fifth largest bidder, Ms Mbere.  He said there was no evidence that government was owed any transfer duty and thus count 10 could not hold either.

Meanwhile the state presented its response to the application yesterday. The defence is set to reply to the prosecution this morning before Gaborone Regional Magistrate Lot Moroka delivers a ruling.