DIS officers reject Magosi’s defence over P7.4m payout
Mpho Mokwape | Monday April 13, 2026 06:00
The case centres around the February 2022 ruling by the Tribunal on Intelligence and Security, which ordered the DIS to compensate 106 officers for unpaid employment benefits, including overtime, salary adjustments and housing allowances accumulated over several years.
Although the DIS later paid out about P7.4 million, the officers argue that the agency did not comply with the terms of the order, both in how the payments were made and in the amounts paid.
In a fresh affidavit filed before the Tribunal, lead applicant Lucky Kgabeng points out that the officers have still not yet been paid in accordance with the ruling and that the intelligence agency’s response has been evasive.
“The Directorate is not disputing our version that it has not paid us in terms of the court order. Instead, the Directorate is simply being evasive in its answer,” states Kgabeng.
He maintains that this alone is enough to show that the DIS breached the order and should be found in contempt.
“I maintain my averments that the respondents are in contempt. The order of the honourable Tribunal has not been complied with,” he said.
The officers argue that the dispute is not about whether any money was paid, but whether the payment strictly followed the Tribunal’s instructions.
They say that one of the key issues is that the order required payments to be made through their lawyers.
However, the DIS instead deposited the money directly into individual bank accounts and that for them, is not a minor procedural issue but a fundamental failure to obey the order.
“The Respondent’s concession that it has not complied with the dictates of the order of the Tribunal is noted. This is the gravamen of our complaint,” Kgabeng posits.
He also criticised the agency for downplaying its non-compliance as merely “cosmetic,” warning that such an approach undermines the rule of law.
Kgabeng explained that it is worrying that the Respondent, as a State agency, can boldly and confidently state that its non-compliance pertained to ‘cosmetic aspects of the court order, insisting that all terms of a court order must be respected and observed.
The officers further argue that the DIS is attempting to reopen issues that were already settled through agreement. According to Kgabeng, the Tribunal’s decision was based on a consent order between the parties, and the agency cannot now dispute its own calculations.
“The Directorate cannot now backtrack on an Order it had consented to,” he said.
Kgabeng described the explanations that is now being offered by the DIS as an afterthought that does not excuse failure to comply.
“The explanation that the Directorate is advancing is simply an afterthought. It does not avail a competent defence to the disregard of a lawful court Order,” he said.
A major concern for the officers is the lack of transparency in how the payments were calculated.
Kgabeng explained that the Applicants have not been provided with detailed reconciliations showing how much each individual was paid and how those figures compare to what was ordered.
They pointed out that this has made it difficult for them to determine whether they received the correct amounts because the calculation of how much they are owed is a highly technical process.
Kgabeng noted that all the 106 Applicants were on different salary scales and levels.
He added that tax deductions further complicate the matter, making it nearly impossible for the officers to independently verify the figures.
“None of us are tax experts in order to know how much PAYE tax was deductible from our back pays,” Kgabeng said.
Because of this, the Applicants say they cannot take further legal steps to recover any outstanding balances and that they could not apply for a writ of execution against the Directorate for their balances which they still do not know to date.
The officers also accuse the DIS of ignoring attempts to resolve the matter outside court. Kgabeng told the Tribunal that a letter sent to the Director General in January 2024 requesting a reconciliation of the payments was never answered.
“The Directorate has been notified by a letter dated the 31st of January 2024 that it has not complied with the Order of the Tribunal. The letter has never been favoured with a response,” he said.
Kgabeng further claimed that some payments were handled outside the terms of the order, including instances where funds were allegedly paid to a law firm’s trust account in a manner not authorised by the Tribunal.
In their view, these actions show a pattern of disregard for the Tribunal’s authority and point to bad faith on the part of the agency.
“I aver that the bad faith is palpable,” Kgabeng said.
While the officers remain firm in their position, Magosi has previously defended the DIS, acknowledging that there was “technical non-compliance” but denying any deliberate wrongdoing.
“The mistake is highly regretted, and I blame internal miscommunication for the mistake,” Magosi said, adding that delays were caused by funding constraints and that payments were only possible after additional budget was secured around September 2023.
He also argued that the original calculations were flawed, leading to inflated figures that had to be corrected. According to him, errors in overtime rates and salary adjustment dates resulted in overstatements, which were later revised to arrive at the final payout.
Magosi further maintained that the DIS complied with the essence of the Tribunal’s ruling by making payments, even if the timing and method did not strictly follow the order.
However, the officers reject this argument, saying partial or incorrect compliance cannot be accepted.
“All terms of a court order must be respected and observed. This is what the rule of law demands,” Kgabeng said.
They insist that contempt proceedings are the only effective way to enforce the order, dismissing the DIS’s argument that such matters should be handled through other legal channels.
For the 106 former officers, the case is about more than just the money owed. It is also about accountability and ensuring that state institutions respect judicial authority.
The Tribunal is now left to decide whether the DIS’ actions amount to contempt of court or whether the explanations provided by Magosi are sufficient to excuse the agency’s failure to fully comply.
Until a ruling is made, the officers continue to push for full enforcement of the order, arguing that anything less would set a dangerous precedent for how court decisions are treated.
The officers are represented by Otto Itumeleng Law Chambers while the DIS is represented by Bogopa, Manewe, Tobedza and Co.