Home » News » General » Court intensifies Rapula’s troubles in CMB case

Court intensifies Rapula’s troubles in CMB case

Publishing Date : 16 April, 2018

Author : TEBOGO KGALEMANG

Gaborone High Court Judge Omphemetse Motumise has dismissed with costs Chief Executive Officer of Capital Management Botswana (CMB) Rapula Okaile and further slapped him with another charge of contempt of court on Friday.


Okaile and his wife Neo had approached the court on urgent basis, seeking an order for the release of their eight motor vehicles impounded by the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) last month. The applicants’ contention was that their vehicles have been seized without the due process of law such as a warrant or lawful authorization.


Delivering the ruling, Motumise stated that, “I find that the applicants have failed to meet the requirements of urgency. Furthermore, although the application was lodged two days after the vehicles were seized, the applicants have failed to prove that they will not be granted an adequate alternative remedy in due course. They have also failed to establish that the balance of convenience favours them.”


The judge stated that where the impounded vehicles were wrongly seized by the state, the owners thereof have a suite of remedies at their disposal, including among others, restitution; general damages, special damages or the applicants could during the course of investigates simply prove that the vehicles were not proceeds of crime, in which event, they will be released without the need for litigation.  “But the applicants do not say why all these remedies will not be available to them in due course or why they are not suitable remedies.”


He said the purpose for which the impounded vehicles have been seized was to conduct investigations: an assessment of the balance of convenience requires a balancing exercise between the rights and interests of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute crime and the right of individuals to enjoy the ownership and possession of their property.


“If the vehicles are released before the conclusion of investigations, this could constitute a severe, if not a fatal blow to the investigations. The questions whether the vehicles were acquired through proceeds of crime would not thereafter be properly or effectively investigated. The respondents will have no guarantee that the vehicles will remain available for investigative purposes, and on the other hand the applicants will have recourse to damages,” ruled the judge, adding that the case favours the


“To express my revulsion and opprobrium at the applicants’ disregard of the order of this court and especially Rapula, I will order punitive costs against them. But this is not enough to send a strong message to the applicants that they need to obey the law and court orders.”
It was then that the judge dealt with the issue concerning the motor vehicle registered under CMB.  The DCEC had submitted that none of the applicants has the authority to claim it since CMB is presently under statutory management pending a judgement due next week. The court had in the previous mention in a matter concerning the appointment of Mr Peter Collins as statutory manager, ruled that Collins’s appointment shall remain effective pending the finalization of the matter.


In law, in view of the said order, the statutory manager is, the only person entitled to institute proceedings on behalf of CMB and not any of the applicants. The applicants however, sought to deflect the point by suggesting that statutory management is not the same as judicial management. Their contention was that the statutory manager deals with the day to day operations of the company while its directors can deal with other matters such as litigation.


Judge Motumise however ruled that, “In the face of the order of this court and the provision, the applicant’s position is disingenuous and I reject it. The applicants have, by openly purporting to act for, or on behalf of CMB, notwithstanding their knowledge of the order of this court, committed an act of contempt of court. Those actions deserve severe and effective censure from this court.” “I express my displeasure at the applicant’s contemptuous conduct and I find them liable, especially Rapula to be cited for contempt of court.”


The DCEC had on their arguments, urged the court to dismiss the application on the basis that leaving the vehicles at the disposal of the applicants has the inherit danger of the vehicles being disposed of, thus defeating the effectiveness of any criminal or civil forfeiture order that the courts may order later.  


An officer of the DCEC, Goitseone Esely stated on a replying affidavit that the DCEC was presently investigating the Botswana Opportunity Partnership (BOP) into which a commitment of P500m was made by Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF) on the inception of the contract between it and CMB in 2014.


CMB is the general manager of BOP where BPOPF is a limited partner and has contributed the sum of P477m to be invested and managed by CMB. There is a reasonable suspicion that some of the funds were diverted to CMB accounts and in turn ended up financing the vehicles owned by WARENTEBO Investment. She stated that the impounded vehicles might have been acquired through proceeds of crime, and that they were seized in the course of lawful investigations under the DCEC Act. 

Cartoon

Polls

Do you think the closure of BCL will compel SPEDU to double their efforts in creating job opportunities in the Selibe Phikwe?

banner_14.jpg
banner_12.jpg

POPULER BRANDS