BHC faces court battle over top executive dismissals
Mpho Mokwape | Monday June 29, 2026 06:00
Pogiso Thapelo, Richard Chilisa, and Samantha Chabata filed an urgent application before the High Court, seeking to overturn letters issued on 19 June 2026 titled “Early Release from Contract of Employment”.
The three executives argue that their dismissal was carried out without legal authority, without a hearing, and at a time when BHC had no board of directors.
According to court papers, the applicants held senior positions within the corporation under fixed-term contracts running until January and March 2027. They contend that the contracts could be terminated only in accordance with applicable law, their employment agreements, and BHC’s governance framework.
In a certificate of urgency filed with the court, attorney Mboki Chilisa said the matter required immediate intervention because the applicants had been removed from their positions “without notice, without any hearing, without lawful authority.”
The applicants claim they were instructed to surrender company property and were subsequently locked out of BHC’s information technology systems and workplace platforms.
Central to their case is the argument that BHC’s board was dissolved on 4 June 2026 and had not been reconstituted by the time the decision to terminate their employment was made.
“The statutory framework governing the Second Respondent (BHC) vests authority over the appointment and dismissal of senior officers in a properly constituted Board,” Thapelo states in his founding affidavit.
The applicants argue that once the board was dissolved, there was no lawful authority capable of dismissing senior executives.
“There was no lawful structure remaining capable of exercising dismissal powers over senior executives,” the affidavit states.
The court papers further contend that even if Busang was acting as General Manager, that position could not replace the powers legally reserved for the board.
“An acting appointment cannot recreate a dissolved statutory organ, cannot substitute statutory authority, and cannot confer powers expressly reserved by law to a body that no longer exists,” the affidavit reads.
The applicants also allege that they were denied an opportunity to respond before the decision was taken against them.
“A cardinal principle of public law is that no adverse decision bearing on the rights and interests of individuals shall be taken by a public authority without adherence to the audi alteram partem principle,” the affidavit states.
The three executives say they have continued reporting for duty despite the termination letters, but remain unable to access workplace systems.
Beyond the employment dispute, the application paints a picture of growing tensions within the state-owned corporation. The applicants allege that Busang had previously faced complaints from employees and had clashed with colleagues over governance and procurement matters.
They claim they raised concerns about procurement proposals linked to infrastructure projects and that their professional advice highlighted commercial risks facing the corporation.
“Our report highlighted the commercial risks of the transaction that was being motivated by the First Respondent,” the affidavit states.
The executives allege that their removal followed disagreements over governance and procurement issues. They further claim that Busang recently told Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee that they had been misleading the board and sabotaging the corporation.
“For the record, we have never at any point been called to answer any allegations of misleading the Board,” the affidavit says.
The applicants maintain that their dismissals have caused serious damage to their reputations.
“The reputational harm is immediate, continuing, and incapable of adequate compensation in damages,” they argue.
The court papers also warn that the departure of several senior executives over the past year, combined with the absence of a board, has weakened oversight within the corporation.
“The removal of the applicants will significantly weaken the system of checks and balances necessary for the proper administration of the Second Respondent,” the affidavit states.
The three executives are seeking an interim court order allowing them to regain access to BHC offices and electronic systems while the case is being heard. They also want the court to declare the termination letters unlawful, set aside the decisions, and confirm that they remain employees of the corporation.
In their concluding argument, the applicants told the court that urgent intervention is necessary because continued implementation of the decision would deepen the harm they say they are already suffering.
“We submit that we have established all requirements for interim interdictory relief, namely a clear right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience in their favour, and absence of any adequate alternative remedy,” the affidavit states.
The High Court will determine whether the matter qualifies for urgent hearing and whether interim relief should be granted pending the final determination of the dispute.