Ramogapi had no authority to engage private lawyers for gov’t case – AG
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday June 30, 2026 13:59
In an affidavit filed before the High Court in a case involving Ramogapi and three executives of Botswana Housing Corporation (BHC), Bayford said he agrees with the applicants that Ramogapi had no legal authority to instruct Kanjabanga & Associates to act in a matter brought on behalf of the government.
'I confirm the averment made by the Applicants that it was unlawful for the first respondent to give the law firm, Kanjabanga & Associates, a Power of Attorney in what by all appearances was an application brought on behalf of the government,' Bayford stated.
The Attorney General said he is cited as the second respondent in the application but noted that no relief is being sought against him. While he has filed a notice to abide by the court's decision, he said it was necessary to submit an affidavit because the application touches directly on his constitutional and statutory powers. Bayford explained that under Section 51(3) of the Constitution, he is the principal legal adviser to the government. He further said that Section 3 of the State Proceedings Act provides that legal proceedings by or against the Government must be brought through the Attorney General.
According to the affidavit, whilst the AG may authorise private lawyers to represent the Government, such authority can only be given by him through a Power of Attorney.
'Where I authorise a private Attorney to represent the Government in legal proceedings, I give such Attorney a Power of Attorney. Nobody else, save for officers to whom I may have delegated the function, has the power to give such mandate,' he said.
Bayford also confirmed that he never authorised Kanjabanga & Associates to act for Ramogapi in the matter.
'I have never given the above-mentioned Law Firm a Power of Attorney to represent me in this matter,' he stated.
He further disclosed that he became aware of the proceedings only after seeing the court order now being challenged.
'As a matter of fact, I only became aware of the matter after having sight of the resultant order, which is now the subject of these proceedings,' the affidavit reads.
Bayford confirmed the applicants' claim that Ramogapi, acting in his capacity as Minister of Water and Human Settlement, purported to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Government, a function he said falls exclusively within the Attorney General's mandate.
'I confirm that the first respondent, insofar as he brought the legal proceedings in his capacity as Minister of Water and Human Settlement, purported to bring such proceedings on behalf of the government. This function, as I have stated above, is the sole responsibility of the Attorney General,' he said.
He added that the resulting court order binds the government rather than Ramogapi personally. The Attorney General went further to state that because the proceedings were commenced without his authority, he agrees with the applicants' position on their legal effect.
'In consequence of the foregoing, I agree with the Applicant that the proceedings were a nullity,' Bayford stated.
On the issue of costs, Bayford argued that there is no reason for the Government to bear legal costs arising from proceedings that lacked legal validity under the State Proceedings Act.
'For the foregoing reason, there is no reason why the Government should be mulcted with costs in this application,' he said.
Bayford concluded by saying his affidavit was intended to clarify his constitutional and statutory role and that he had deliberately not addressed the merits of the ex parte application or related proceedings in Maun because he is not a party to those matters.