Somewhere between the Directorate on Commercial and Economic Crimes (DCEC) Director and Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), there is an incorrigible liar.Now that’s an understatement.
There is a docket thief who should be digesting cabbage and same with his variety behind a walled compound somewhere at Village. As we have come to learn, the docket regarding the former DIS Director has gone missing and the DPP and DCEC are involved in acrimonious finger-pointing. The DPP says the docket is with the DCEC. The latter says it is with the DPP.
Mine is not a case against the former DIS Director. I am violently opposed to the conviction of people in the courts of public of opinion. We have ourselves to blame for a captured judiciary and hopeless investigative institutions.
My focus is on the two offices of the DPP and the DCEC. It is on the liar and those that have a duty to investigate and smoke him out, whoever that is. Some of you would know that my life has been, largely, about crime dockets. Sorry for sounding arrogant; no one is going to lie to my face about file paths between these two institutions. Let us get some things clear.
Firstly, as a rule of practice, if not policy, the DCEC generally retain the original dockets.
They don’t hand same over to the prosecution until the date of trial. The floating, or working docket is hardly ever the original docket. On trial, the docket is still in the safe custody of the Investigating Officer.
Evidential analysis is made on a working copy. So, when prosecutors talk about returning a docket, they are almost invariably talking about returning a copy.
That is true, even in the case of police dockets. But then, it is not in every case that dockets are returned. Often, there is a meeting of task teams where a snag list is discussed. The investigators will then be given clear directions by the prosecution on areas to further investigate.
I am not aware of a single case in my prosecution career where the DCEC sent a file to the DPP and retained no copy or sent the originals together with copies. The practice of sending original dockets to the DPP stopped years before I left that institution.
I am not saying it is not possible, or that it was not done in this case. You never know. It may be that an exception was made in this regard. I am interested, if that was the case, to know why. The DCEC Director, in particular must explain what exactly happened and why. It is in the public interest.
Secondly, former Director Rose Seretse is right. Dockets move between these offices under cover of a savingram. It
Thirdly, as a rule, there are quarterly reports by the DPP made to the President on cases of national interest. I have personally been a part of their preparation. They touch on all cases of national interest. There is no way the case of the former DIS Director would not have been on the list. Yes, Section 51 says the DPP does not report to the President. Briefings are, however, in fact made.
The process is not in breach of the Constitution. It is just a heads up in order to keep the leadership informed. Somewhere, in these reports, it would have arisen that the docket which is not only about Isaac Kgosi, but also about DISS expenditure, normally secret, had gone missing.
Not only the President, but the Attorney General would know. The Attorney General too, must tell the public what he knows. It not enough trying to hide behind DPP professional independence.
The Attorney General is the DPP’s administrative supervisor constitutionally.
When a file goes missing under the care of the DPP, especially a file so sensitive, it is an administrative matter. He is directly accountable. What have you done about the case of the missing file Mr. Attorney General?
Have you reported the matter to the police for the same to be investigated? If not, why? Inaction on your part would be educative.
Again it would be interesting to hear from Rre. Makgope if he ever received a report of the case of a missing docket. Let us remember that if a docket goes missing together with all its copies that would not be a case of loss.
An original docket and copies cannot go missing in two different places under custody of different people. Batswana deserve an explanation on this.
So far, we are just witnessing grown up men playing marbles. Sadly, over a national interest matter.
Just so you know, these dockets are not analysed by the topmost DPP management. They are assigned to senior prosecutors at management level who advise the DPP on evidential sufficiency.
The prosecutors must say how exactly the docket was remitted to the DPP’s office and what the recommendation was. They can tell the police a lot.
And of course it only makes sense that the DPP and the DCEC Director must be interdicted while investigations continue and an effort is made to find who the docket thief is. There can be no other way.