By Charles Wyndham.

The headlines in the Botswana newspapers have been pretty eye catching lately, none more so than the last three Sundays.
 
The hullabaloo is about accusations of De Beers / Debswana funding the ruling party or particular individuals including at least one previous President.

One Sunday Standard headline screamed, "BDP in De Beers, Debswana slush funds scandal".

The Botswana Gazette has reported that there is pressure for a commission of inquiry in regards to the "recent media reports on possible grand corruption involving De Beers and some senior politicians and or the ruling party…"

The point the Gazette argues is that whilst Botswana is seen as relatively corrupt free the fact is that "corruption (in Botswana) is essentially elitist in nature."

This statement, of course, raises an interesting point of discussion, apparently saying that all the problems are at the top but not lower down and therefore implying that there is less reputational risk the higher up the pecking order you go.

Odd.

The trigger for all this dirty laundry being aired in public seems to be the fact that the prosecution of Louis Nchindo, ex Managing Director of Debswana for several cases of alleged corruption, is slowly but surely coming out of a seemingly never ending coma of inaction.

Charges are being thrown around all over the place in and out of the specifics of the Nchindo case where Nicky Oppenheimer has after what would appear considerable reluctance given a statement once the Nchindo case has moved onto appeal, that is not an appeal of a verdict but appeal in relation to various technicalities.

I do not claim to understand all the ins and outs of the case and the various accusations being lobbed around, but it is not a pretty sight.

It is often too easy to jump to the conclusion that there is ‘no smoke without fire’, but whatever the rights and wrongs there is no doubt that at the very least things do not look wholesome.

De Beers has confirmed, as reported by the Sunday Standard’s story, that they did bail out the former President whilst he was in office and also once he had left office.

De Beers in a statement in the Standard made the point that such assistance given during the President’s time in office was to "relieve him of this burden of debt and providing him with resources for the farm (i.e., the then President’s farm) to be independently managed  and so enabled him to attend to the duties of his office and matters of national interest."

The De Beers statement went on to say: "In the present day and age, the De Beers family of companies operates in a completely different environment with clear policy guidelines governing donations and for disclosure."

Whatever the smoke and fire there might or might not be, this self satisfied response is ill becoming, especially of a company that in the Jayam case, showed just how amoral it was prepared to be, and that is under the current management.

Such palliative words used in defence of the De Beers family of companies leave a queasy feeling in my stomach, why spew this rubbish out.

What is clear is that De Beers is doing all it can to avoid another humiliation in the forthcoming negotiations with the Botswana Government for the renewal of the marketing contract.

The negotiations in 2004 really cut to the quick of De Beers authority.

The Government were deeply miffed about how the privatisation in 2001 had been pushed through by De Beers and, in which, in relation to Debswana / Botswana, Nchindo was a key player.

By the end of the 2004 negotiations of the marketing contract De Beers were shell shocked and their legal big wig was shown the door.

The 2004 negotiations saw De Beers margin slashed, the promise of aggregation being squeezed out (it has of course remained just that, a promise), the creation of DTC Botswana and so on.

De Beers, to strengthen its hand has brought in the much respected ex Minister Neo Moraka.

Dr Tombale, De Beers nemesis in 2004, has been removed as Diamond Hub Coordinator, a fact that I am told provided De Beers with the best possible Christmas present.

So in the context of all the excitement in the press and changes in personnel things are shaping up for a full head to head.

However, this is hardly sensible.

Unless De Beers actually goes bankrupt which presumably would be a bit inconvenient for its largest shareholder Anglo, it is well nigh impossible to see either the reality or even the desire to have the company kicked out of a role in Botswana.

However, that does not mean to say that the role cannot change and it must surely be possible to have change which is positive to both sides.

Progress can only be made by realising that the status quo, which is blatantly failing to produce good results to both parties when De Beers is selling well below market prices, is indefensible and instead look to do things differently without undermining either sides independence, or erode their financial position.

Heavens above if Botswana does succeed in squeezing De Beers profits anymore then it has no chance at all in avoiding financial annihilation.

It might be more fruitful if De Beers stopped trying to take the high ground, even its management cannot be living so high in cloud cuckoo land to realise that it simply will not wash to try to be seen trotting about like some pious monk; and, instead, focus on maximising the value of diamonds to itself and for those to whom it acts as agent.