Khama denies being a national security threat
FormerPresident Ian Khama is demanding that government should provide him with further and better particulars in order for him to strike out certain portions of his affidavit.
Khama has taken government to court over his retirement benefits, among them use of government aircraft, boat and his security detail.
Cited in the case are Attorney General, President Mokgweetsi Masisi, former Permanent Secretary to the President Carter Morupisi and Directorate of Intelligence and Security ( DIS) Director General Peter Magosi.
Magosi has through the Attorney General filed a notice of application to strike out certain portions in the former president’s affidavit citing matters of national security.
The Attorney General contended that the former president is not at liberty to disclose confidential information relating to numbers, models and makes and therefore the military or other capabilities of national security air assets.
It is argued that former president also relies on hearsay regarding confidential information. The DIS boss further argued that the use of the court process as a vehicle for such disclosures is an abuse of court process.
This is after Khama in his court papers revealed the numbers, makes and models of the aircraft that government has indicating that there is no how he could have been denied the use of the aircraft under claims that they were all being used at the time he requested them.
In his papers Khama said in law, privilege and confidentiality are two distinct and separate legal
concepts and further that while the privilege is a concept known to the law of evidence, there is no rule of evidence against pleading facts or adducing/ admitting evidence merely because it is in the nature of confidential information, unless the information in question, in addition to being confidential is also protected by some type of legally recognised privilege.
He denied that the record of proceedings relating to the decision by the DIS to instruct his security detail not to carry out their statutory duties
to protect him during his trip to India on March 8th 2019 contains any documents the production of which is injurious to public interest. “Similarly, I deny that the record of proceedings relating to the decision of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security to institute disciplinary proceedings against my personal protection officers for having performed their statutory duty to afford me personal protection contains any documents the production of which is injurious to public interest.
“In fact, it is in the public interest that I must be afforded my statutory right to personal protection all the time, and that such a statutory right cannot be withdrawn at the whims of senior public servants or any government official.
“I am therefore aggrieved by the decision of the fourth Respondent ( Magosi) declining to produce the remaining portion of the record, and I will proceed in terms of subsection ( 3) of Section 2 of the Intelligence and Security Act and request this Honourable Court to determine whether or not the portion of the record proceedings withheld by the fourth Respondent would be injurious to public interest if produced,” Khama said in his supplementary affidavit.
He avers in the papers that Masisi’s statutory powers in relation to his ( Khama) benefits of access to use government owned aircraft and boats is that, “I can use such modes of transport, on a case by case basis, on such terms as may be determined by the 2nd Respondent ( Masisi).
He said it is clear from the record of proceedings that all of the relevant requests have been refused. The former president pointed out that there was no response for the request of March 2019. In April 2019 several requests made were refused without reasons while in June there was a request that was declined on grounds that air transport was engaged on national priority areas.
According to the former president, even after the said dates of travel President Masisi or officers assisting him did not bother to afford him the courtesy of an explanation for having failed to respond to his request. He said the government has no less than 20 aircraft that could be utilised for his request adding that the refusal to allow him access to government owned air transport is illegal, irrational and/ or unreasonable.