FNBB accuses Mauritian ‘investor’ of self-help in EUR 500m standoff
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday July 6, 2026 06:00
The bank's response comes weeks after Alithea obtained an interim High Court order allowing it to preserve documents and electronic records which it believes could help trace the alleged international funds transfer.
In its founding papers, Alithea claimed that the funds were transferred through Deutsche Bank AG Frankfurt, allegedly to be used under Botswana's Economic Transformation Programme (BETP), following engagements involving Minister of International Relations, Dr Phenyo Butale, and the Botswana Investment and Trade Centre (BITC).
The company alleged that the money was transmitted through the international SWIFT Global Payments Innovation (GPI) system using a Unique End-to-End Transaction Reference (UETR), and that the funds were settled on April 15, 2026.
Alithea further claimed that despite receiving confirmation from its investment partners that the funds had been settled, FNBB repeatedly maintained that it had no record of the transaction.
Subsequently, the company sought court intervention, arguing that critical banking records had to be preserved before they could be altered or destroyed. It also notified the Bank of Botswana, SWIFT headquarters in Belgium and several law enforcement agencies, including the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA), the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS).
However, in its answering papers, FNBB presents a completely different version of events. In a replying affidavit, FNBB Head of Legal Tsaone Bedi argues that the application is fundamentally defective and based on allegations that have never been supported by evidence. Bedi also says one of the first issues that became apparent to the bank was uncertainty regarding the identity of the applicant. She points out that correspondence received by FNBB initially came from Alithea Investments Limited, a company registered in Mauritius, while the court proceedings were later instituted by Alithea Investment (Pty) Ltd, a Botswana-registered company.
According to Bedi, the distinction is significant because it raises uncertainty about the entity allegedly involved in the disputed transaction.
Furthermore, she states that between March and June 17, 2026, Alithea persistently maintained that EUR500 million had been transferred into its account held at FNBB and repeatedly demanded confirmation that the bank had received the funds.
Bedi stated that, the bank carried out all necessary enquiries and investigations before responding to the company.'FNBB, having done all necessary inquiries and/or investigations, eventually informed Alithea that the funds were not in its possession and was, therefore, unable to assist the applicant any further,' she states. Despite this, Bedi says the company refused to accept the bank's position.
She states that in response to an email sent by FNBB chief executive officer Steven Bogatsu, Alithea alleged that SWIFT Brussels had confirmed the transaction was genuine and that settlement had allegedly been effected into an FNBB account on April 15, 2026.Bedi says those allegations were never supported by credible evidence.
'FNBB has consistently maintained that it is not in possession of the alleged funds, and Alithea has failed to furnish any tangible proof that the said funds were transmitted to the respondent,' she states.The bank also takes issue with the interim court order obtained by Alithea.
Bedi argues that the order should never have been granted and that the subsequent search and seizure exercise conducted at the bank's premises was unlawful. She says the exercise amounted to self-help by Alithea and those who executed the court order.FNBB's attorneys, Armstrongs, through Moemedi Tafa, have also raised several legal objections challenging the manner in which the application was brought before court.
Amongst the issues raised is that the application contained no prayer for urgency and no request for the court to dispense with the ordinary rules governing service and time limits. As such, the bank argues that, there was therefore, no legal or factual basis for the matter to proceed urgently. The bank also argues that, as a licensed and highly regulated financial institution, it was unnecessary and inappropriate for Alithea to seek an Anton Piller order permitting the preservation of evidence.
FNBB says banks are already required by law to preserve records and that there was no risk that evidence would disappear. The bank further accuses Alithea of failing to disclose important information when approaching the court without notice to FNBB.
In Tafa's view, the company omitted several material facts, including what he says were disclaimers that no party had confirmed the transaction, alleged confirmation that the transaction reference could not be verified and FNBB's statutory obligation to retain records. He argues that these omissions breached the duty of utmost good faith required in ex-parte proceedings. Tafa claims that the execution of the court order caused unnecessary damage to FNBB's reputation.
'The Applicant caused severe reputational, operational and regulatory prejudice to the Respondent, a regulated commercial institution with over 30 years of operations in Botswana, by conducting a publicly visible, enforcement-style entry into its premises on the strength of an order that did not authorise such entry,' he states.
The bank goes further, accusing Alithea of deliberately presenting a misleading version of events to secure the court order. 'The conduct of Alithea, taken in its totality, is not the conduct of a party that made an honest error. It is the conduct of a party that constructed an application upon a selective and misleading factual record, obtained an order through that misrepresentation, and then executed what it knew to be an unauthorised search over FNBB's live objection,' argues Tafa.
On that basis, FNBB wants the High Court to discharge the rule nisi granted in favour of Alithea.It is also asking the court to order the immediate return of every document, electronic record, forensic image and data file obtained during the search.The bank further wants all copies of the material, whether held by Alithea's lawyers, the Deputy Sheriff or any other person involved in the search, to be destroyed.
In addition, FNBB is seeking an order preventing Alithea from using any information obtained during the search in these proceedings or in any future civil, criminal or regulatory matter. The bank is also asking the court to order Alithea to pay legal costs on the punitive attorney-and-client scale.
The case stems from Alithea's claim that it was invited to invest in Botswana under the BETP and that arrangements were made for EUR500 million to be transferred through Deutsche Bank AG Frankfurt into its account at FNBB. Alithea alleges that despite documentation it says confirms the transfer, the bank failed to credit the funds or explain what became of them.
The company has also requested SWIFT headquarters in Belgium to preserve all records relating to the disputed transaction, including audit trails, authentication logs and communications that may assist the court in determining what happened to the money.