Magosi urges court to stay out of DIS internal affairs
Mpho Mokwape | Sunday November 9, 2025 12:55
According to his affidavit filed in response to Pulane Kgoadi’s urgent court bid to stop her disciplinary hearing, Magosi said there is no basis for the courts to “micromanage internal disciplinary processes.”
“The matter is still being held internally as a disciplinary hearing is ongoing. There is no need for the court to interfere because it undermines the independence of disciplinary bodies,” he said.
Magosi came out strongly against Kgoadi, describing it as an abuse of process and insisting that the spy agency acted within the law. In papers filed before the High Court this week, Magosi argues that Kgoadi’s application is not urgent and that she is attempting to revive a matter that legally expired months ago.
He points out that in December 2024, the intelligence head of legal Kgoadi, who is currently on suspension, obtained an interim interdict from Justice Boipuso Makhwe, stopping the disciplinary board pending the filing of a review application. She was given sixty days to file that review, but never did. Nearly a year later, Magosi says, she is now seeking the same relief through the back door.
“The urgency, if any, is self-created. The applicant has allowed the timelines to lapse and now seeks, by way of urgency, what she is legally barred from seeking. In terms of court rules, review proceedings must be filed within four months of the decision being challenged. Since Kgoadi failed to act within that period, her claim is time-barred,” he states in his affidavit.
Magosi also argues that Kgoadi has not suffered any real prejudice that would justify court intervention at this stage, adding that the disciplinary hearing is ongoing, no verdict has been made, and that she still has a right to challenge any eventual decision through proper legal channels.
He explained that all the issues Kgoadi complains of can be addressed in due course, and if she is found not guilty, the matter ends there.
“If she is found guilty, she can then approach the court through normal review channels,” he says.
The DG also rejects Kgoadi’s reliance on Justice Makhwe’s 2024 interim order, saying it was temporary and cannot be treated as a final finding, adding that any observations made by the court at that stage were prima facie and not binding.
He notes that even that order lapsed automatically when Kgoadi failed to comply with the sixty-day filing condition.
Magosi also takes issue with Kgoadi’s argument that the Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP), Emma Peloetletse, acted outside her powers when she ordered the investigation that led to the charges against Kgoadi.
He maintains that the PSP, as head of the public service, has administrative oversight over all public officers unless expressly exempted. “Members of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security have not been exempted from the Public Service Act,” he says. “Where the Permanent Secretary has been requested to provide administrative support to an investigation, there is nothing unlawful about her involvement.”
Magosi added that it would be “untenable” and “absurd” to suggest that alleged wrongdoing within the intelligence service should be ignored simply because the matter first came to light through an administrative process initiated by the Permanent Secretary.
“Alleged wrongdoing can never be ignored, regardless of how it comes to my attention. To fail to respond to allegations concerning members of my team would be a complete abdication of my duties,” he says.
Magosi says the disciplinary process was initiated in good faith and denies any insinuation of bad motive or procedural unfairness.
He stressed that the inquiry is being conducted by a properly constituted Board of Enquiry, which is still seized with the matter.
“I do not intend to influence the Board by debating the merits in public. These are matters to be determined by the Board and, if necessary, later by the courts through judicial review,” he says.
Magosi’s affidavit concludes with a firm request to the court to dismiss Kgoadi’s application, arguing that it is baseless, premature, and designed to delay the disciplinary process.
He explained that for any one of the above reasons, the application ought to be dismissed and stated that for now, he stands by his position that the process was lawfully initiated and must be allowed to run its course.
Supporting Magosi’s account, the secretary of the board of enquiry, Pauline Tsiang, filed an affidavit confirming that Kgoadi’s preliminary objections were received, shared with the prosecutor, and considered by the board.
She explains that the board decided to rule on jurisdictional issues at the end of the hearing rather than at the outset, saying this decision was made in line with its procedural discretion and established practice.
Tsiang says that while an amendment to the charge sheet was proposed, it was later withdrawn because it was deemed unnecessary, and as a result, the original charge against Kgoadi remains in place.
“The applicant was afforded the opportunity to raise and record her objections, and these will be considered at the end of the proceedings,” she said.
Meanwhile, the standoff between the intelligence chief and his subordinate has drawn wide attention, highlighting tensions within Botswana’s security and administrative structures. The court’s eventual ruling will determine whether Kgoadi’s disciplinary process continues or is halted pending further review.