Motshegwa’s BLLAHWU grip faces another test

After surviving previous attempts to oust him, BLLAHWU secretary-general Ketlhalefile Motshegwa’s grip on the union will be tested once again as he faces another attempt by his detractors to dislodge him from his position.

His position at the union has been under siege since his contract was extended back in 2020. It is said that the union’s leadership was divided over the decision to extend his contract.

While Motshegwa, who is also the Botswana National Front (BNF) secretary-general, has prevailed in previous attempts, he subsequently lost at the Court of Appeal (CoA) on November 4, 2022, a decision which the union dismissed as just an “academic exercise because the matter was overtaken by events”.

Despite that decision, Motshegwa has remained at the helm of the union.

The lower court misinterpreted the applicants’ application by determining that it had no connection and/or was not based on the court’s decision dated November 4, 2022.

The duo also wants the CoA to determine whether the High Court erred in holding that the applicant was a review application disguised as a declarator and ought to have been brought in terms of Order 61 of the rules of the High Court within the time confines of the said order.

The duo believes the CoA decision of November 4, 2022, rendered all the union’s decisions null and void, including the one to repeal the union’s constitution of 2015 and replace it with the one adopted at the special Congress in 2021 and subsequently extending Motshegwa’s contract.

“It is our submission that all that was previously considered to have been done properly in law by the 4th respondent was invalidated by the decision of the CoA abovementioned,” read the duo’s court arguments.

The appellants further argue that decisions taken by Motshegwa as an unlawful occupant of office cannot be legally valid.

Therefore, the appellants seek a declaration that resolutions of the special Congress of October 29, 2021, are invalid on the basis (in terms of the union’s more specifically clause 13.3.2) that the congress did not meet the required quorum, as outlined in the union’s constitution.

They argue that since the Central Executive Committee (CEC) is constituted of seven members, two-thirds of that would be 4.66, which rounds up to five members. As only four members attended the Special Congress, they argued that the quorum was not met.

“At the time the special Congress was convened, only four members of the CEC attended; therefore, the CEC did not meet the quorum,” they further argued.

The appellants claim that Motshegwa and the union president Thatayaone Kesebonye have shown total disregard for the CoA decision by continuing to occupy office illegally. They stress that allowing such conduct would render the courts a mockery.

The duo argues that their expulsions were baseless, made contrary to the union’s constitution and principles of natural justice, and are therefore invalid.

His position at the union has been under siege since his contract was extended back in 2020