By Maitseo Tswaipe Baikepi

The recent appearance of the Director General of Botswana’s most talked-about security agency, the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services (DISS), Mr. Peter Fana Magosi, before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has once again captured national attention.

As expected, the proceedings generated widespread public debate, not merely because of the questions asked, but because of one response that has since echoed across the country: “It’s classified.”

Responding to a question by Member of Parliament for Lobatse Kamal Jacobs regarding the reported purchase of 300 Angora sheep, Magosi remained resolute.

Before giving his now-famous response, he repeatedly pleaded with the committee not to compel him to disclose information that, in his professional judgment, would compromise national interests.

In his own words, he appealed: “Sir, may I not be forced to divulge that which I fully know I should not divulge for the best interests of the country.”

He went further to suggest that had the matter not involved another sovereign state, he might have considered responding differently.

However, given the nature of intelligence work and the principles governing international relations, he remained unwavering: “It’s classified.”

To many, the phrase may have sounded evasive. To students of intelligence, national security, and international relations, however, it represents something far more profound.

It is not merely an expression; it is a professional obligation. It is the language of patriotism, discipline, and constitutional duty. This development raises a broader constitutional and governance question that deserves sober national reflection.

Where does the mandate of parliamentary oversight end, and where does the responsibility to protect national security begin?

The Public Accounts Committee exists to promote accountability, transparency, and prudent use of public resources. These principles are fundamental to any democratic state.

Equally fundamental, however, is the responsibility of intelligence institutions to safeguard information whose disclosure could compromise national security, operational effectiveness, intelligence sources, or Botswana’s strategic interests.

The Directorate of Intelligence and Security is Botswana’s principal intelligence agency. Its mandate extends beyond gathering intelligence; it is entrusted with protecting the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, constitutional order, and national stability.

By its very nature, intelligence work depends on confidentiality. Revealing operational details in a public forum may satisfy immediate public curiosity, but it could inadvertently expose capabilities, methods, partnerships, or vulnerabilities that ultimately weaken the very security the institution exists to protect.

This is not to suggest that intelligence agencies should operate without accountability. On the contrary, accountability is essential in a constitutional democracy.

However, accountability must be exercised through mechanisms that recognise the unique responsibilities of intelligence institutions. Oversight should strengthen national security, not inadvertently compromise it.

The question, therefore, is not whether the DIS should be accountable. It unquestionably should. Rather, the question is: To what extent should an accounting body such as the Public Accounts Committee compel disclosures from an intelligence agency whose statutory mandate is to protect classified information?

This debate is neither unique to Botswana nor new to democratic governance. Across the world, democracies continue to wrestle with the delicate balance between transparency and secrecy, public accountability and operational security, as well as parliamentary oversight and the protection of national interests.

The Director General’s repeated response, “It’s classified,” may have been interpreted by some as an attempt to evade scrutiny. Yet, to those who understand the ethics and discipline of intelligence work, it may well have been the highest expression of patriotism and constitutional duty.

After all, an intelligence officer’s first allegiance is not to public curiosity, but to the security and sovereignty of the Republic.

As Botswana continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, perhaps the debate should not centre solely on what the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services declined to disclose, but on whether our oversight mechanisms are adequately designed to scrutinise intelligence agencies without compromising the very national security they are established to protect.

In our rightful pursuit of transparency and accountability, are we in danger of demanding from our intelligence services the very disclosures that could undermine Botswana’s sovereignty, or is it time to redefine where public accountability ends and national security begins?

• Maitseo Tswaipe Baikepi is a PhD student at the University of Botswana.