Instead, it has sparked a storm of accusations, denials, and unresolved questions about the influence of De Beers on the nation’s politics. Former president Mokgweetsi Masisi’s claims that the diamond giants bankrolled his removal to dodge taxes – and that the new Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) government watered down a favourable diamond deal – are explosive matters. But without evidence, they risk becoming a toxic distraction from the real issue: the need for transparency in Botswana’s most vital industry.
Masisi’s allegations are undeniably serious. He asserts that De Beers, angered by his government’s tough negotiating stance, funded opposition campaigns to secure a “political settlement” on tax terms.
His claim that the UDC outspent the BDP by “a factor of more than 1:15” implies illicit financial backing. The irony, however, is stark. Masisi’s own BDP government kept the De Beers agreement secret while in power. Now, as a defeated leader, he demands the UDC disclose details – a move that reeks of political opportunism as much as principled concern. The UDC’s response, dismissing Masisi as unreliable and denying De Beers’ involvement, is equally unsatisfactory. UDC spokesperson, Moeti Mohwasa’s refusal to engage substantively, while threatening to “respond mercilessly” if pushed, does little to inspire confidence. De Beers, for its part, cites its Code of Conduct prohibiting political funding.
Yet, history is littered with examples of corporations publicly decrying interference while covertly protecting their interests. In a nation where diamonds account for over 80% of export revenue, the stakes are too high to take denials at face value. This saga highlights systemic issues. Firstly, Botswana’s reliance on diamonds has long created a power imbalance between the State and De Beers.
While Masisi boasts of negotiating a ‘50-50’ diamond split after a decade, the lack of public scrutiny over such deals leaves citizens in the dark about whether the terms truly serve national interests.
Secondly, the BDP’s secrecy in office undermines Masisi’s newfound zeal for transparency. If the original deal was so advantageous, why wasn’t it disclosed earlier? The UDC, now governing, has a chance to break this cycle. Rather than trading barbs with Masisi, it should proactively publish the De Beers agreement.
Transparency would not only dispel suspicions but set a precedent for accountability in a sector pivotal to Botswana’s economy. Similarly, De Beers could bolster its credibility by supporting an independent audit of its political engagements in Botswana.
Masisi’s allegations may well be a mixture of sour grapes and strategic deflection following the BDP’s collapse. Yet, they tap into legitimate public anxieties about corporate influence and political integrity. Botswana’s democracy, though resilient, cannot afford complacency. The diamond trade must benefit the people, not shadowy deals.
‘None of the main issues which humanity is facing will be resolved without access to information.’- Christophe Deloire
