Khama not our liability – gov't
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday March 1, 2022 06:00
In an ongoing case where the State and Khama are in a tussle regarding the latter’s retirement benefits, the former is not having it saying not all Khama’s requests are to be met and certainly that he is not the government’s liability.
On Friday the Court of Appeal bench wanted to know why the State was adamant on denying the former statesman his retirement benefits as he had made several requests to no avail.
On behalf of the State, attorney Charles Gulubane explained that his client could not be subjected to a hostage situation where it was liable to every request made by Khama.
“He is entitled to enjoy the retirement benefits but not all requests will be answered to. The State cannot be liable to all costs when he can make other provisions for himself. It would be such a huge liability to us,” he said.
Gulubane said the request by Khama to visit Dalai Lama was met with resistance because it ruined the one China policy and strained relations between the two countries therefore it cannot be said that they should compensate for that trip.
He said some requests did put the government in a compromising situation and had a political and economic effect.
“Khama’s visit to India strained our relations with China. The President was forced to travel to China in the quest to restore relations. He was even right to refuse the request for an aircraft for such mission because he jeopardised political and economic relations with China. He knew China had that policy in place but defied it,” he said.
Gulubane pointed out that the High Court judge, Gabriel Komboni was wrong to rule that Khama was entitled to all benefits including the funding of his trip to India when it clearly had an effect on national interest and was the reason the State couldn’t take such chances.
He said the government was entitled to exercise its discretion when it came to most of Khama’s requests since the law does not impose strict liability on the State.
“The judge, therefore, was wrong in imposing strict liability against the State when the statute quite clearly does not impose such as ordered by the court,” he said.
However, Gulubane could not clearly answer the bench’s questions as to why the government, if it was exercising its discretion as they claimed, was not communicating with Khama to clearly state their positions on the requests rather than ignoring them.
The court wanted to know if that was the right approach by the State to ignore Khama when it knew very well that he was to be accorded such requests or at least if not a better and detailed response as to why the requests could not be met.
The attorney fumbled on his words trying to explain why and the court wasn’t buying it telling him if there was a proper response to Khama's requests he would have not been forced to seek court redress on the matter.
Meanwhile, Khama’s attorneys insisted that he was entitled to his benefits in full, as a former statesman and that the State had no right to deny him such.
Advocate Mpho Garebatho explained that the State had failed to communicate with Khama on several occasions when he made requests and that there was no explanation for such display of behaviour.
“[For] Most of the requests there was no response and no explanation. Khama is entitled to enjoy his benefits as he is accorded that by law. It is not the State to choose when and how he is to enjoy those benefits,” he argued.
Garebatho explained that the one China policy had nothing to do with Khama as an individual, therefore, the court was right to rule that he was entitled to be reimbursed for all the expenses incurred on the trip.
He emphasised that policy was not law and that no one should be forced to abide by it if they do not subscribe to it.
“A policy is just that, it is not binding and it should not be forced or enforced on people because it is not law, so if Khama does not subscribe to it, it is his choice and needs to be respected,” he added.
The bench of Judge President Tebogo Tau, Justices Singh Walia and Bashi Moesi is expected to give judgement on March 4, 2022.