BHC executives challenge Ramogapi's board powers
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday June 30, 2026 13:48
The executives, Richard Chilisa, Pogiso Thapelo, and Samantha Chabata, have filed an urgent application seeking to have a June 26, 2026, ex parte order granted in favour of Ramogapi set aside.
They argue that the order was improperly obtained because they were never included in the proceedings, even though the outcome directly affected their employment and the broader dispute over the BHC governance. According to court papers, the applicants contend that the minister relied on the order to validate decisions taken after the dissolution of the BHC Board, including actions affecting their positions within the corporation.
They maintain that those decisions remain the subject of separate litigation already before the courts and should not have been addressed without their participation. In their application, the executives argue that the Minister effectively assumed powers that legislation reserves exclusively for the BHC Board. They submit that the Botswana Housing Corporation Act clearly outlines the composition and responsibilities of the Board and does not permit a single individual, including the responsible Minister, to perform functions assigned to the collective body.
'The court cannot, with respect, through declaratory relief, confer upon the Minister powers which Parliament has expressly vested in a multi-member Board constituted in accordance with the Botswana Housing Corporation Act,' Chilisa states in his founding affidavit.
The applicants further argue that the law requires the BHC Board to consist of at least seven suitably qualified members, and that allowing the Minister to exercise the Board's statutory powers undermines Parliament's intention, which deliberately entrusted those responsibilities to a collective decision-making body rather than to an individual office-bearer.
Another central issue raised in the application concerns the manner in which the Minister approached the High Court. The executives argue that Ramogapi lacked the legal authority to institute proceedings in his official capacity without the Attorney General's involvement.
Relying on Section 3(2) of the State Proceedings (Civil Actions By or Against Government and Public Officers) Act, they argue that only the Attorney General is authorised to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the Government or public officials acting in their official capacities. The applicants further contend that the private law firm Kanjabanga and Associates had no authority to institute the proceedings because it had not been instructed by the Attorney General.
'Ramogapi could not lawfully sign a power of attorney appointing private lawyers to represent him in a matter brought in his official capacity as a Cabinet Minister,' argue the executives.
According to the affidavit, this alleged procedural defect renders the proceedings that resulted in the ex parte order legally invalid. 'It was unlawful for him to purport to act in his capacity as Minister and sign a power of attorney authorising Kanjabanga and Associates to institute proceedings on his behalf. The proceedings through which an ex parte order was granted were in fact a nullity,' the court papers state.
The executives also accuse the minister of failing to disclose important information to the High Court when seeking the order, and they also argue that the court was not informed that litigation challenging both the appointment of Acting General Manager Selinah Busang and the termination of their employment was already pending before another court.
According to the applicants, full disclosure of the existing legal disputes would have demonstrated that they had a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings and should therefore have been joined before any final relief was granted.
The trio further argues that the Minister's order threatens to interfere with a provisional ruling they obtained from the High Court in Maun on June 26. That order temporarily halted the implementation of their dismissal letters and allowed them to resume their duties pending a hearing scheduled for June 30, 2026.
In their latest application, Chilisa, Thapelo and Chabata are asking the High Court to rescind the order granted to Ramogapi and suspend its operation whilst the rescission application is being determined. They also seek a declaration confirming that only the Attorney General, or someone authorised by that office, may institute legal proceedings on behalf of a Cabinet Minister acting in an official capacity.
Additionally, the executives want the court to order that Ramogapi personally bear the legal costs of the application, arguing that the litigation was improperly instituted and should not have proceeded in the manner it did.