Suspended DIS officers sue over ‘unlawful’ probe

Mpho Mokwape | Monday April 27, 2026 06:00

In the freshly filed court documents, the case centres on what is known as the “Bagopi Report”, a 163-page document reportedly completed in September 2024 following an internal investigation into alleged misconduct within a multi-agency team of the DIS.

The five plaintiffs, Paul Setlhabi, Mpho Molokwane, Sebueng Mukane, Kuda Malikongwa, and Pulane Kgoadi, say the report has led to arrests, suspensions, and disciplinary charges that have lasted for more than 18 months.

“The Bagopi Report, authored by an appointed investigator, is, 'unlawful, null and void because the appointment of the investigator was itself outside legal authority,” they argue in their court papers.

The plaintiffs were part of a team assigned to investigate alleged maladministration and corruption issues involving Air Botswana, including human resources practices and aircraft procurement concerns raised in an intelligence report in early 2024.

They say the team was officially mandated under the Intelligence and Security Service Act and was led by Setlhabi in her capacity as Director of Legal Services at the spy unit.

According to the court papers, the investigation was authorised to address matters of national security.

However, the plaintiffs claim that the investigation was halted in March 2024 by a directive from senior leadership, allegedly communicated through the Chief of Staff of the Directorate.

They argue that despite this instruction, they continued their work in good faith after discovering what they describe as possible corruption involving high-level officials.

The court documents state that shortly after this, on 21 March 2024, the plaintiffs were arrested and detained by law enforcement officers acting on instructions linked to senior intelligence leadership. They were later suspended on 24 April 2024 pending investigations into alleged misconduct.

The plaintiffs argue that the disciplinary process that followed was flawed from the beginning.

They claim the Bagopi Report, authored by an appointed investigator, is unlawful because the investigator's appointment was itself outside legal authority.

The report is vague, speculative, and not supported by evidence. The report relies on conclusions rather than facts. It contains conclusory statements without specific evidence and fails to show how any alleged misconduct was proven,” the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs also rely on a previous High Court judgment delivered in December 2024 by Justice Makhwe, which found that the Permanent Secretary to the President had no authority under the Intelligence and Security Service Act to direct investigations into intelligence officers.

The plaintiffs argue that this ruling renders the entire disciplinary process invalid because it was initiated pursuant to instructions they say were unlawful.

Despite this judgment, the plaintiffs claim that disciplinary proceedings continued, including the issuing of show-cause letters in September and October 2024, followed by formal charges later that month.

They say they responded to all allegations, but that the hearings proceeded regardless.

The defendants in the case include the Attorney General, the Director General of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security, Peter Magosi, the Permanent Secretary to the President, Emma Peloentle, and the investigator, Tebogo Bagopi, who reportedly authored the report. The plaintiffs are seeking several orders from the court. They want a declaration that the appointment of the investigator was “ultra vires”, meaning beyond legal authority, and therefore invalid.

They also want the ‘Bagopi Report’ declared unlawful and all disciplinary proceedings based on it set aside.

They further want the court to stop any ongoing disciplinary hearings. They argue that continuing the process will cause them irreparable harm, including possible dismissal, reputational damage, and prolonged suspension without resolution.

In their filing, they state that their suspensions have now lasted more than 18 months, which they say is contrary to internal disciplinary rules requiring that such matters be handled without unnecessary delay.

They describe the suspension as “inordinate, unjustified, and punitive in nature”.

The plaintiffs also argue that the disciplinary charges themselves are vague and unsupported. One charge relates to alleged “falsehoods” or document manipulation, which they deny.

“There is no evidence of destroyed, altered, or falsified documents, and the allegations are based on inference rather than proof,” they said. They further claim that the investigation failed to follow internal disciplinary procedures, including rules requiring that investigations be conducted by senior officers and supported by proper evidence, and that these breaches make the entire process unfair.

Another key argument the plaintiffs mention is that the disciplinary action was selective, pointing out that the investigative team included about 30 members, but only they were targeted.

They suggest that this raises concerns about motive and fairness in the selection of accused individuals.

The court papers also raise concerns about timing, stating that disciplinary action was taken after the plaintiffs reported possible corruption involving senior officials, and they suggest that the proceedings may be retaliatory in nature, although this remains an allegation before the court.

In addition to stopping the disciplinary process, the plaintiffs are also seeking costs of the case and any other relief the court may deem appropriate.

They have also asked that, if any criminal wrongdoing is found against senior officials involved, the matter be referred to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions.

The defendants have been given 14 days to file their response, after which the High Court will have to determine whether the disciplinary process should be halted or allowed to continue.

The plaintiffs are represented by Dutch Leburu and other attorneys from Monthe Marumo & Co.