Malemas lose challenge for Babirwa chieftainship
Innocent Selatlhwa | Thursday September 21, 2017 16:24
With reasons to be advanced today, Dambe ordered that the case should be dismissed as the applicants failed to show that they had the right to succeed and therefore their application stood to be struck out. She also dismissed the urgency of the matter.
“The applicants also failed to provide sufficient grounds on why the matter is urgent.
They also failed to show that the ouster clause of the Bogosi Act does not apply and therefore their application cannot succeed. The costs are to be paid by the applicants,” she said. The Malemas approached the court on an urgent basis seeking an order interdicting and restraining Bangwato Regent, Sediegeng Kgamane and Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, Slumber Tsogwane from appointing and/or recognising and/or installing, Ezekiel Joel, Dimakatso Patane and Onkemetse Serumola, as Baemela Kgosi in the Babirwa bogosi.
The Malemas also wanted Joel, Patane and Serumola to be kept from performing, or holding themselves to be performing the functions of a chief, chief’s representative or headman in relation to Babirwa bogosi, pending and until final determination of the review application to be instituted by the applicants.
They also wanted the court to direct that pending final determination of the review application, Tsogwane shall appoint from amongst the headmen of the Babirwa people, such competent and qualified individuals to act in the vacant positions created upon the retirement of Malema, the death of Joel Masilo and Patane being interdicted. They want the appointments to be made in 30 days. Abel Modimo represents the Malemas.
In their response, the Attorney General through Matlhogonolo Phuthego, had argued that neither of the applicants has the right to bring the application.
”The respondents dispute that the applicants have the right to bring the matter to court.
On the contrary, the respondents submit, the applicants have no direct and substantial interest in the right which is the subject matter of this litigation and in the outcome thereof,” Phuthego stated.
Phuthego said Malema had retired from his position as a Kgosi and has failed to demonstrate that following his retirement he still have the powers under Bogosi Act to choose his successor.
He also argued that both applicants failed to advance reasons as to why Letso cannot get substantial redress at the hearing in due course. Phuthego said the applicants’ claim that they and the Babirwa tribal community stand to suffer irreparable harm, should Kgamane proceed and succeed in appointing Baemela Kgosi in Bobonong to fill vacancies left by Malema and Masilo, is void.