You have no evidence - Masisi sisters
Ruling in a no case to answer application filed by President Mokgweetsi Masisi’s sisters against their nephew over a government tender has been reserved for March 8, 2024. This week, the President’s family was in court once again as the battle continued to expose the Masisi family.
Background of the matter is that Masisi’s nephew, Olebile Pilane, dragged his aunts Boitumelo Phadi Mmutle and Ketshidile Ntho Hlanze through their company, Tswela Khumo ventures (PTY) LTD, G&M Building Services (PTY) LTD, a Chinese businessman Huashi Li and Kelebogile Monnatshipi to court alleging that he was illegally elbowed out of their joint company- G&M Building Services (PTY) LTD.
Testifying under oath, Pilane said all this happened after the joint company had won half a billion pula water tender.
Pilane during trial and through his court papers had previously dropped names of some of Botswana’s rich and powerful alleging that the latter control government tenders. Some of his claims are that the Director General of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS), Peter Magosi, was instrumental in ‘scaring’ him and that the spy chief was also involved in the awarding of the tender.
The nephew also claimed that the Chinese businessman has attempted to ‘capture’ the first family as a way of getting close to the President by amongst others paying for Mmutle’s posh Phakalane home.
He also revealed in court that the Chinese investor told him that to secure more tenders they had to donate to the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP). Pilane says the fallout began when he refused to make the five percent donation to the BDP.
However, his aunt hit back against his allegation. During cross-examination, the Masisi sisters’ lawyer, Obrien Bvindi shut down Pilane’s claims. This week when attempting to prove a no case to answer, the Masisi sisters told the court that their nephew has no evidence to back up his claims. “Plaintiff has failed, in its submissions, to demonstrate that the defendants are not entitled to absolution from the instance,” they indicated. (Absolution from the instance is otherwise called a no case to answer)
Additionally, they said there is no evidence except claims about threats by the DIS and a donation to the BDP. “There is no evidence of this ever happening,” they said.
They also maintain that their nephew has no legal documents to prove he was ever a shareholder in the company that won the joint bid.
However, Pilane maintains he was forced to resign from the company and his shares were handed to his aunt by the Chinese businessman. He says this came after he was given unreasonable demands which h e declined to implement.
“He adduced evidence that amidst these unreasonable instructions, he wrote a letter to the fourth defendant (Li) that he would not accede to those instructions. That the fourth defendant became livid and threatened the plaintiff with violence and harassment from some state security agents,” read Pilane’s papers to the no case to answer. In court, Judge Michael Leburu asked why the aunts, who have been prominent names mentioned in the suit were not joined to the suit. In response, Pilane’s lawyer acceded that they should have been joined to the suit, but said they indicated that they did so through their companies as they acquired his shares through their company and not individuals. Pilane further clarified that he was seeking damages and not profit.
“The tender amount for the bid won and awarded to Tianyuana and the first defendant being P549 669 654.79, the profit to be realised therefrom by the joint venture would be P109 939 930.96. The first defendant’s 40% share of the said profit would be P43975972.96. The plaintiff ’s 40% share in the first defendant’s profit is P17590388.95. Consequent to the aforesaid, the plaintiff has therefore suffered special damages in the amount P17590388.95.”