Dr. Dow wants Seboko’s case dismissed
France Museveni is hiding in plain sight - Dow
Specially Elected Member of Parliament Dr. Unity Dow wants the court to dismiss an application by Botho Seboko who has dragged the legislator to court for linking him with the Facebook account of France Museveni.
Dr. Dow in her application based on points in limine says the application by Seboko is fatally defective and incompetent for the reasons that Seboko found his entire application on the High Court finding of violation of criminal provisions ( Sections 17 and 18 of the Cybercrime and Computer Related Crimes Act, 2018) by way of application proceedings ( civil proceedings).
Dow avers that the application is fatally defective and incompetent for the reasons that Seboko seeks to have the High Court make findings of violation of criminal provisions ( Sections 17 and 18 of the Cybercrime and Computer Related Crimes Act, 2018) by the Respondent in application proceedings in violation of Dow’s constitutional rights, amongst which include but not limited to the right to a fair trial ( Section 10 of the Constitution of Botswana).
“The applicant is an employee of the Botswana government and all and any interactions in which I have engaged him on were in his capacity as an employee of the Botswana Government. Actions for and against the Botswana Government are properly initiated and/ or defended, as the case may be, by the Attorney General.
“This application is about the acts and activities of France Museveni, a Facebook troll who has operated for, at the minimum, the last three years and the reconciliation of the competing claims by the applicant and I, on the identity of the said troll. The dispute between the parties cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence and indeed the applicant admits same,” Dr. Dow, who is also a former cabinet member, argued.
Seboko in reply argued that it is incorrect to suggest that one cannot seek a relief by way of motion proceedings on the basis of the Cybercrime and Computer Related Act, 2018 simply because provisions of that Act are criminal in character.
Seboko who is represented by attorney Dr. Obonye Jonas, said that Dow seeks to suggest that a litigant has no private relief when the provisions of the Cybercrime and Computer Related Act are being violated in relation to him but that his relief only lies in public law, that is criminal law, to be precise.
“The Respondent avers that a litigant seeking to use the aforesaid Act can only do this through criminal proceedings by first making a report to the police so that criminal proceedings can be initiated.
“This is not only incorrect but also irrational. The correct view is that the Cybercrime and Computer Related Act imposes both criminal and civil liability for cyber harassment, cyber stalking, and offensive electronic communication.
“It is therefore competent for a litigant who complains about the commission of these offences in relation to himself or herself to approach Court for a restraining Order, as I did in this case,” Seboko argued, adding that one always has an option to use the civil legal system to combat computer crimes.
Dr. Dow stated that France Museveni does not use his own name, adding that France Museveni is a coward hiding behind a pseudonym.
“France Museveni harasses targets and extols a selected few. I am a victim of France Museveni’s trolling and slander. My family, in particular my children Cheshe Maitumelo Dow and Tumisang Sesha Dow and my son- in- law Doru Aldea are victims of France Museveni’s trolling and slander.
“The Botswana Government has the resources and expertise to identify a troll, especially one that is active and posts potentially self- identifying information. France Museveni is active, has at least 60, 000 followers and offers possible self- identifying features such as who he tags, who he attacks, who he extols, the information he shares, the claims he makes about his sources and the kind of information he has in advance to certain actions of the Botswana Government.
“France Museveni is hiding in plain sight. France Museveni operates with impunity. I have reported the trolling activities of France Museveni to various functionaries of the Botswana Government. The actions and activities of France Museveni that I detail hereunder are in the public domain,” Dow argued.
According to Dr. Dow, the applicant seeks to have the court silence her forever but offers no relief to “me and my family to the sustained damaging attacks by a troll he is in a position to unmask and stop.”
Dow avers that Seboko has failed to join an obvious and key party to these proceedings, namely the Attorney General. She said that Seboko “has failed to make out case for a final interdict and has particularly failed to set out facts supporting his prayers. I deny that I have conducted myself in any way that supports the relief that is sought by the applicant.
“I assert that the applicant is an employee of Botswana as Director of Research and Analysis in the Directorate of Intelligence and Services ( DIS) and operates from an office at the DIS Headquarters, Main Mall, Gaborone.”
Seboko pointed out that indeed, several acts give rise to both criminal and civil liability. He said therefore, the preliminary points taken by the Respondent are spurious, ill- conceived, unmeritorious, and must be rejected. He expressed doubt if all the sensitive information that Dr. Dow claims to possess has any relevance in this case. Seboko admitted that he is employed by the Government of Botswana, but denied that Dr. Dow was communicating with him in that capacity.
“The Respondent was targeting me for scorn, cyber- harassment and cyber stalking on her erroneous belief that I am France Museveni. The Respondent literally insults me. Does the Respondent suggest that if I am a government employee then she is at liberty to insult me?
“This application is not about the activities of France Museveni. It is about the acts of cyber- harassment and cyber- stalking and offensive electronic communication by the Respondent against me, for which I ask for a restraining Order from this Honourable Court.
“Unmasking the identity of France Museveni is the Respondent’s business not mine. It is also improper for the Respondent to seek to do so in this case. She must start her own case where that can be done,” Seboko argued.