Details of how beMobile cellular phone service provider helped Botswana
Defence Force military intelligence to eavesdrop on dismissed former
Deputy Commander, General Pius Mokgware’s cellular phone conversations
may be kept secret following an out of court settlement on Monday.
Mokgware had launched a lawsuit against BDF and beMobile after he was
dismissed from the army allegedly following an extra-judicial
surveillance against him, which he described as “systematic monitoring
and tapping of phone calls, communications from his cellular phone and
general surveillance”.
It is believed that President Lt Gen Ian Khama and the BDF fired the
former deputy commander on the strength of intelligence illegally
gleaned from his BeMobile cellular phone conversations.
Mokgware has since withdrawn his case against BDF following an out of
court settlement. The lawsuit against beMobile, however, is still before
court.
Indications are that beMobile will take cue from the state and opt to settle out of court.
Mokgware had wanted a total of P12 million; P6 million from BDF and P6 million from beMobile.
In an amended affidavit, Mokgware is demanding that BTC and beMobile
furnish him with documents he requires for purposes of his law suit
against the two state-owned phone service providers.
The former BDF boss states in his statement that beMobile General
Manager, Anthony Masunga, had told him that they had recently taken
disciplinary action against employees they had found to be accessing
customers’ accounts without authority and that the system had provided
the information necessary to trace the employees in question.
Mokgware was responding to beMobile’s reasons for declining to produce
the print out showing persons who had accessed his cellular phone
account claiming that beMobile system does not create logs or print outs
from which it can be determined who has accessed an account.
“This runs contrary to the information that I was given by Mr Masunga
when I first reported my complaint a day following receipt of the sms
subject of litigation,” said Mokgware. He said at the time, Masunga
assured him that each user with access to customer’s accounts has a
password and once such password is used at any given time the system
records who has accessed information and what particular account they
were accessing.
“Mr Masunga assured me at the time that they would thus be able to trace
such user, if any, in their investigation into my complaint. I,
therefore, dispute the current about turn taken to claim that such
information is not generated at all,” states Mokgware.
He also accuses BTC of attempting to deny the existence of documents
generated by BeMobile consequent to his lodging a complaint with
Masunga.
“I wish to point at this juncture that such denial cannot be correct as
upon following up progress on enquiry into my complaint some in
February/March 2012 with Mr Masunga, he told me personally that since I
have also reported the matter to Second Respondent (The Director
General, Directorate of Intelligence and Security) Second Respondent
office was not in a position to give any feedback directly back to me on
the matter. He advised me in this regard to take up the matter with the
Second Respondent,” says Mokgware.
He said he was advised by the DIS Director, Isaac Kgosi, that statements
had been taken from persons referred to and records obtained from
beMobile, including a report from beMobile.??“He further advised that
his office was not in a position to divulge to me the contents of the
documents and their report on the matter in the absence of a court order
to that effect,” he said.
In an earlier letter to the Attorney General Athaliah Molokomme and
retired BDF Commander General Tebogo Masire, General Mokgware had
alleged that around January 2010, a BDF Intelligence Officer (known to
this paper) erroneously sent him a text message requesting details of
his communication on his private mobile number.??He states that from the
text message, it was clear the message was a request to a beMobile
employee and “it was self evident from the sms that this was not the
first time that such information had been requested”. ??Mokgware further
claimed that his investigations pointed to the involvement of the
army’s high ranking officials who instructed junior officers to tail
him.
No comments:
Post a Comment