China Jiangsu Accuses Gov't Officials Of Fraud
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Monday September 23, 2019 11:59
Senior Counsel John Peter, who was acting on the instructions of his firm told the Court of Appeal (CoA) on Friday when making an application for an expedited appeal that there was internal sabotage against China Jiangsu.
The Chinese-owned construction company is fighting a messy battle with the Botswana government over a P1.5 billion cancelled water tender amid allegations of security threats.
He argued that it was wrong for the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board (PPADB) to deny his client the tender when it met all the requirements solely on baseless information from the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS). He said there was an act of fraudulent procurement dealing on the part of government officials.
“Even if there was substance to what the DIS said, it was entirely irrelevant to the tender process.
There was internal sabotage as the officials acted fraudulently against my client,” he argued.
Peter said if the matter were heard in the normal course, it would just be completely scholastic as by then the project would have been built.
“They have been playing the delay game and if the matter is not expedited, it will be an exercise of futility.
Denying the expedited appeal is denying recourse,” he argued.
While he conceded that there are two competing interests; that is the interest for good public governance and the needs of the community, he cautioned that infrastructural need should not trample the rule of law.
He argued that if balance was to be achieved on the two competing interests, it is paramount that the appeal is expedited.
However the respondent’s attorneys Tshiamo Rantao and Sifelani Thapelo, representing PPADB and the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services respectively argued that if the matter is heard in a normal way, the applicant stands to claim compensation if it proves that there was fraud.
“If it is able to prove that the public officers acted in bad faith or manipulated the system, then there is an alternative remedy at the end of it,” Rantao argued.
Rantao also argued that there is no immediate benefit for the applicant.
“There is nothing special about their case. It is just that they were excluded from the P1.5bn tender, which means this is just about their selfish commercial interests, not public interest,” argued Thapelo.
He said the onus is on the applicant to prove that the balance of convenience is in their favour. CoA Justice Isaac Lesetedi will deliver the ruling on the matter on Thursday.