(a) The Botswana Police Service had leased blocks of flats comprising 236 housing units owned by a private developer in  the Maruapula area in Gaborone, effective from 1 April 2016, at  a monthly rental of P1 288 000. Subsequently, the Police had  proposed to purchase the flats at a price of P364 million for  which the Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Board approval was granted in December 2017. However, related  inquiries had disclosed that the earlier lease had not followed the  Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act requirement of approval by the Ministerial Tender Committee, but had only  been facilitated by the Department of Housing. The implication  is that the process of acquisition of the lease, including the test of  whether the rental was competitive, had not been properly  evaluated and approved by the appropriate authority, as contemplated by the Act. It could therefore not be ascertained  whether Government had received value for money on these  leases.  (b) In May 2017 an agreement was entered into with a private  property developer for a 5-year lease of an office block in  Francistown, at a quarterly rental of P299 880. However, as at  August 2018, some 15 months into the lease period, the Police  had still not moved into the office block. The explanation  offered was the delay with the installation of a back-up generator. I am concerned that rental payments continued to  be paid without beneficial occupation of the premises as this  constitutes nugatory expenditure.  (c) In another case, the Police had occupied a private office block  in Gaborone on a 5-year lease from November 2001 to 2012. During the currency of the lease, the Department of Lands  acceded to the Police request to terminate the lease to take up  occupation of another building in the Central Business District,  Gaborone on condition that they gave 6-months notice. In the  event, the Department over-stayed the period of notice by 8  months, incurring further rental expenditures on these premises.  (d) Other cases noted related to instances where in one case an  officer who had left service had not made proper arrangement  for the payment of rental for the pool house that he had  occupied and had accumulated rental arrears, and other cases  where ex-officers had continued to stay in pool houses without  authority. The concession of allocation of rent-free pool houses is  a privilege which should be systematically safeguarded.  86 