DPP misled Magistrate Dipate - Khama
DPP made arrest warrant application while there is another application before high court on same matter Argues that the DPP withheld critical information
Former president Ian Khama has argued that the Acting Regional Magistrate, South Mareledi Dipate was misled by the Director of Public Prosecution ( DPP) to issue a warrant of arrest against him during the festive season.
Dipate issued the warrant against Khama after the DPP made an application for his arrest so that he could be issued with summons and charge and appear in court.
Khama has filed an urgent court application seeking to strike down the arrest warrant issued against him by the magistrate court. He asked the high court to set aside the warrant or stay its execution, citing a lack of evidence for his prosecution.
Khama has argued in his founding affidavit filed with the court that it was improper, irregular, unreasonable, irrational, and contrary to law for the DPP to have brought an application for his arrest, when he ( Khama) has as far back as the 19th of August 2022, filed and served a review application seeking to set aside the DPP’s decision to prosecute him.
He pointed out that the DPP is a party in the review application and was duly served with the said application.
“The 1st Respondent ( DPP) is represented by the same attorneys both in the review application pending before the High Court and in the application for the warrant for my arrest.
“The 1st Respondent having approached the regional magistrate ex- parte, ought to have disclosed the 2nd respondent ( Ag Regional Magistrate Dipate), in their application for the warrant of my arrest, the fact that the High Court was already seized with review proceedings against the 1st Respondent’s decision to prosecute me, under the same charge sheet in respect of which he sought a warrant of my arrest,” the former president said.
Khama and former Director General of Directorate of Intelligence and Security ( DIS) Isaac Kgosi last filed an application before Lobatse High Court Judge Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe seeking the review and setting aside of a decision of the DPP to prosecute them in the arms and ammunition criminal case where they are charged together with suspended Police boss Keabetswe Makgophe, Deputy Permanent Secretary Bruno
I am advised by my attorneys of record that the said supporting affidavit of Mr Mafuta is based on hearsay, conjecture, baseless suspicions, and scandalous assertions and not on any shred of evidence
Paledi and Sehunelo Khunou.
The duo argue that their rights are affected in relation to the DPP’s irrational and malicious decision to institute and prosecute criminal charges against them. They aver that the firearms and ammunition, which form the subject matter of the charge sheet, are all duly registered and licensed.
According to Khama, the DPP deliberately withheld this critical information from the magistrate because he ( DPP) knew or ought to be deemed to have known that Acting Regional Magistrate Dipate was likely to refuse to grant the application for the issuance of a warrant for his arrest in respect of the same proceedings which the High Court, a superior court of record, was seized with at the time this application was prosecuted.
“Based on the advice of my attorneys of record I aver that the warrant of arrest that was issued was irrational, unreasonable, overboard, and unlawful and is accordingly liable to be reviewed and set aside; alternatively, to be stayed or suspended, pending the finalisation of this application and the extant review application before Ketlogetswe J.
“I am advised by my attorneys of record that the said supporting affidavit of Mr Mafuta is based on hearsay, conjecture, baseless suspicions, and scandalous assertions and not on any shred of evidence,” Khama said.
He continued that the warrant of arrest sought to be stayed or suspended or set aside threatens his right to liberty, in circumstances where he has committed no offence.
“I aver that the execution of the warrant will render nugatory the review application referred to and would be highly prejudicial to my constitutional rights which this court is duty- bound to protect.”
According to Khama, it would be a mockery of the administration of justice and bring the administration into disrepute, in addition to being gravely prejudicial to “my constitutional rights for this court to permit my arrest and/ or prosecution when this court is still seized with the propriety otherwise of the decision to prosecute me.”
He avers that should the warrant of arrest not be stayed/ suspended or set aside and the high court quashes the decision to prosecute him, he twould suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated in any form.