Magosi, Macholo's imprisonment would destabilise gov't
Mpho Mokwape | Friday August 29, 2025 16:56
In a swift reaction to the court’s decision, the Attorney General Mmako Abraham, acting on behalf of the duo, lodged a formal notice of appeal with the court seeking to overturn the decision of the judge on both procedural and substantive groundAccording to the notice of appeal, the State wants to stay the orders with the intention to appeal the ruling on the grounds that the court erred in taking the decision to want to imprison the two while there were measures put in place to comply with the order.
“The High Court erred in committing public officials to prison without exhausting alternative remedies or fully considering the implications on public administration and national security,” reads the notice.
The State wants the ruling set aside and the parties afforded a chance to cordially resolve the matter, arguing that waiting for directions and calculations on how much is owed to all affected resulted in the delay in executing the orders in a timely manner.
Simultaneously, the government has applied for a stay of execution of the High Court's order, particularly the warrant of committal to prison.
The stay application contends that immediate execution of the contempt ruling would cause irreparable harm, not only to the individuals concerned but also to the functioning of key government departments, including those critical to national intelligence and public service management.
The appeal comes after Justice Kebonang found both the DPSM and the DIS in contempt of court for willfully disobeying prior lawful court orders.
In the ruling, he held that Magosi and Macholo were in blatant violation of the authority of the court and consequently issued orders that the respondents were declared in contempt in terms of Orders 28 and 33 of the High Court rules.
Further, that Magosi and Macholo were committed to imprisonment, to be held until they purge their contempt.
“The Registrar of the High Court was directed to issue a writ of personal attachment and committal to prison, authorising the Deputy Sheriff or Botswana Police Service to apprehend the first and second respondents.
“All three respondents, DPSM, DIS, and the Attorney General, were ordered to jointly and severally pay the punitive legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale,” reads the order.
The legal matter arises from a longstanding dispute involving 407 employees of the intelligence agency, including Pelotshweu Masilomangwe, against the DIS and the DPSM regarding back pay.
Despite multiple court directives in favour of the applicants, including paying the affected employees and enforcing procedural compliance, the respondents allegedly failed or refused to implement the said orders, culminating in a contempt of court application.
The employees want this week’s Monday orders executed, and while the two applications are yet to be heard, the orders, including imprisonment of Magosi and Co. remain legally binding until overturned.
The back and forth between the DIS and its employees is a result of a lawsuit based on the fact that about 406 employees in 2023 issued a writ of summons against the DPSM, DIS, and the AG.
They based their suit on the grounds that the decision taken by the government not to pay salary back pay effective from April 2008 was unlawful.
The writ of summons came from a long-standing issue between the officers and their employer on the fast-tracking of employees’ progression.
The aggrieved officers had in the past bemoaned that the DIS continued to ignore a court order that was issued against all ministries for salary scales and a subsequent Directive by the DPSM enforcing the judgment.
The employees' concerns are in relation to the DPSM directive, reportedly meant to fast-track the progression of public servants in the C-band category.
However, at the DIS, it had been alleged by some employees that the changes had not been effected as per the directive.
According to the officers, in 2007, the government introduced multiple titling and grading of C-band positions through a Savingram DPSM 13/34/9 (43) dated May 30, 2007.
The directive was reportedly meant for all ministries, but with the government realising many were not complying as a follow-up to the 2007 Savingram, the government issued directive No. 6 of 2008, where the objectives of multiple grading and titling were vividly set out.
The directive allowed for direct appointment of graduates with appropriate academic qualifications at entry level, but without experience, and to facilitate faster progression of serving officers who qualify for promotion without the need for ministries to request additional posts or resources.
In their court papers, with both the 2007 Savingram and the 2008 directive on multiple grading and titling of C-band positions being applicable to all ministries, the DIS officers alleged that they were also included but have not yet benefited from the directive.
Particulars of the claim were that the officers were aggrieved by the decision taken by the government not to pay salary back pay despite the court order and the directive.
“The decision is contrary to Directive No. 6 of 2008 as read with the Savingram titled Implementation of the Court of Appeal judgment pertaining to directives and savingram on multiple titling and grading of C-band positions dated May 13, 2022,” reads the summons.
The officers, who were at the time represented by Collins Chilisa Consultants, argued that they had a legitimate expectation to receive back pay effective from April 2008.
They also bemoaned that the decision was unlawful insofar as the decision to pay was not back-dated from 2001, when the directive No. 10 of 2001 came into force.
The officers had also submitted that the government had communicated its intention not to pay them salary back pay in terms of the 2008 directive, effective from 2010 when they joined the DIS.
In the summons, the officers had further argued that a cause of action was clear in the sense that in terms of directive No. 10 of 2001, public officers have the right to be assessed and where a vacancy exists, they are to be recommended for promotion after a minimum period of two years instead of three years as was the case prior to that directive.