Businessmen plead harassment, DISS shields identity

OARABILE MOSIKARE
Correspondent | Thursday January 15, 2009 00:00

 

The applicants, Jamal and Abdille Mohammed Ali, want to have their confiscated passports returned. They also want the High Court to restrain DISS operatives from harassing them and frequenting their place of business.

The matter was supposed to be heard at 09:30 hours by Acting Justice Terrence Rannowane but the principal state counsel, David Moloise, informed the applicants' attorney, Morgan Moseki of MCM Moseki Attorneys, that they preferred the matter to be heard in camera.

The Attorney General represents the DISS and it is cited as the first respondent.
Apparently, Moloise indicated in his answering affidavit that the media would expose the name of the second respondent, a DISS agent, in their publications. Mmegi has preferred not to disclose the name of the agent in previous reports.

Upon his arrival at the High Court, Moloise talked to Moseki and asked to go to Justice Rannowane's chambers. Ultimately the two lawyers went to the judge's chambers to see Justice Rannowane. Since Moloise filed his answering affidavit yesterday morning, the judge postponed the matter to read the papers and allow Moseki time to file a replying affidavit.

Present in court was a former chief magistrate whose name is known to this publication. He now works with the DISS. He has also deposed an affidavit in this case. The applicants were arrested on December 4, 2008 on allegations that their work and residence permits were fake. But the two Japanese second hand car dealers were released on December 16, 2008 without charge.

On December 31, 2008, an intelligence officer visited the applicant's business demanding their passports. When questioned, the agent said they have identified a loophole in their documents.

In his affidavit, Jamal Ali, said he and his business partner are surprised that the second respondent could arrest them on the same allegations for which she had detained them and remanded them in prison and released them without charge.

'I and the second applicant consider the acts of the second respondent as an illegal act and harassment. How could she take our passports without a court order?

'As non-citizens we are required to possess our passports with us at all times. Having confiscated the same we do not know what could come next,' Ali submitted. He says that if they intended to travel they could not.

He further explained that they are involved in the business of importing and selling motor vehicles from Japan, a job which requires them to constantly travel from Botswana to South Africa to collect vehicles for sale.

Right now they cannot do that because they do not have their passports.

He swore that the confiscation of their passports renders their situation untenable, not only as non-citizens but also as businessmen. Ali says apart from regular travel they also deal with several institutions such as banks, which require identification.

'From where we operate our business we are a group of business people selling the same items. The presence of intelligence officers from the respondents in the presence of customers and other businessmen is a source of embarrassment and such drives customers away as they may consider us as crooks.

'I and the second respondent consider the conduct of the second respondent as harassment on our part to which we pray for protection from this court. This therefore renders our application urgent,' pleaded Ali.

They applicants say if their application is not heard urgently, by the time it is enrolled in the normal roll in terms of the rules of the court, they would have suffered serious prejudice as business persons.