A legal storm is brewing, and at the eye of it is Bakang Seretse, a businessman entangled in what could become one of the most explosive constitutional challenges the country has seen in recent years.
His legal team has launched a fierce attack on the prosecution, arguing that the case against him is not only outdated but also fundamentally flawed in law. Their bold claim: the case is “unconstitutional, invalid and dead on arrival.” This challenge, if successful, could bring down the entire prosecution and raise profound questions about prosecutorial authority and fair trial rights in Botswana.
The roots of the dispute stretch back more than a decade. Seretse, along with several co-accused, faces multiple charges tied to alleged corruption involving the National Petroleum Fund (NPF), with accusations of stealing millions of Pula, forgery, and conspiracy to defraud. However, the defence contends the charges are based on transactions that date back 11 years, with earlier investigations leading to charges that were dismissed in 2020. Now, the prosecution’s attempt to revive the case after such a lengthy delay is at the core of the defence’s objection.
The defence team’s argument hinges heavily on Section 10(1) of Botswana’s Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. They assert that the 11-year delay severely undermines the fairness of the trial, violating this constitutional guarantee. The delay, they say, is not merely a procedural hiccup but has caused real prejudice, memories have faded, evidence has become unreliable, and the integrity of the judicial process has been compromised. Such delays, legal experts note, can fundamentally distort the scales of justice, tilting them against defendants who have a right to timely adjudication.
This emphasis on the right to a speedy trial is not unique to Botswana; it is a cornerstone of fair judicial systems worldwide. Delays like this one can lead to dismissals when courts determine that justice delayed is justice denied. The defence’s invocation of this principle signals a strategic push to highlight how prolonged legal proceedings can erode fundamental rights and question the legitimacy of ongoing prosecutions.
But the defence’s challenge does not stop at the timing of the case. They have launched a second, equally dramatic assault on the very authority of the prosecution. At issue is a certificate issued on November 10, 2025, by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Oteng Thamuku. The defence claims this certificate is “ultra vires”, meaning beyond the legal power conferred by law. They argue that while the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) may delegate prosecutorial powers, there is no legal provision permitting further sub-delegation. This, they assert, renders the certificate, and by extension, the authority of the prosecution, legally void.
This argument strikes at the heart of prosecutorial legitimacy. Botswana’s criminal procedure law vests prosecutorial authority primarily in the DPP, who can delegate powers but only within strict legal boundaries. The defence contends that this delegation chain has collapsed, leaving the current prosecution without a lawful foundation. If the court accepts this, it could mean there is no valid prosecutor before the court, no valid instrument to sustain the charges, and no legal basis for the proceedings to continue.
The implications of such a ruling would be seismic. It would effectively nullify the prosecution’s case against Seretse and his co-accused, potentially leading to immediate dismissal. Moreover, it would set a precedent about the limits of prosecutorial delegation in Botswana, forcing a reckoning within the country’s legal system about how prosecutorial authority is exercised and challenged.
This legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of ongoing controversy surrounding the NPF case, which has drawn significant public attention due to the scale of the alleged corruption and the high-profile figures involved. Seretse’s defence team has been vigorous in their statements, emphasizing that the prosecution is flawed from the start and that their client’s rights have been trampled by years of delay and questionable legal maneuvers.
Observers note that this challenge also raises broader questions about the independence and accountability of prosecutorial offices in Botswana. The defence’s spotlight on the certificate issued by Deputy DPP Thamuku brings into focus the procedural rigor with which prosecutorial powers must be exercised, especially in politically sensitive or high-stakes cases. It underscores the necessity for clear statutory frameworks and adherence to constitutional safeguards in the criminal justice process.
Legal experts following the case highlight that the courts will need to balance competing interests: on one hand, the public’s interest in seeing alleged corruption prosecuted thoroughly; on the other, the constitutional rights of the accused to a fair and timely trial, and the rule of law governing prosecutorial authority. The Seretse case is poised to become a defining moment in Botswana’s judicial landscape, testing legal doctrines that protect individual rights while enabling the state to enforce justice.
As the court prepares to hear these weighty arguments, the case invites a broader reflection on how legal systems worldwide grapple with the tension between prosecuting complex, long-running cases and safeguarding constitutional guarantees. The outcome could influence not only the fate of Bakang Seretse and his co-accused but also the future contours of prosecutorial power and constitutional rights in Botswana.
The legal drama unfolding around Bakang Seretse serves as a potent reminder that justice is not just about prosecuting wrongdoing but also about protecting the processes that uphold fairness and legality. Whether the courts will uphold the defence’s claims or allow the prosecution to proceed remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: this case is far from ordinary. It is a high-stakes legal showdown that could reshape Botswana’s justice system for years to come.