DIS to question the Khamas again
Anthony, Tshekedi joined their brother in SA following their detention Anthony demands return of his property held by DIS
Anthony Khama’s attorney, Tebogo Tladi, has revealed that the Directorate of Intelligence and Security ( DIS) has indicated that it intends to question his client and twin brother Tshekedi Khama once again.
Anthony and Tshekedi were arrested by the DIS and detained at Sebele premises early this year following the search of Anthony’s residence at Kenmoir Farm last year. The farm is registered under former President Ian Khama’s name. They would later upon release leave for South Africa where they are currently based together with former president who fled to South Africa last year.
Last year, Anthony Khama launched an application with the high court requesting that his property which was seized by the DIS through a search warrant that was issued against former President be returned to him.
The properties were among others, fire arms, computer, pellet gun and radios belonging to Anthony. The high court dismissed Anthony’s application on grounds that the warrant was wide and can be used for the search and seizure. Anthony then launched an appeal raising the question whether a search warrant may be lawfully or validly executed in the seizure of property owned and possessed by a person who is not the subject of the relevant investigation, and who is not named therein. The case concerns the unlawful search and seizure arising from a search warrant issued by the High Court in accordance with Section 22 of the Intelligence and Security Service Act against Ian Khama.
According to Tladi, the Application for the Search Warrant did not list Anthony as one of the persons who was being investigated or a person whose property was sought to be seized on the strength of the Search Warrant. The Search Warrant did not list the Appellant as a respondent nor specify a search for his personal firearms or any article or thing of his personal, he told the court on Monday this week.
Tladi revealed that the DIS has not charged or indicated its intention to charge his client. He told the Court of Appeal that it is almost a year but nothing has been said by the DIS.
According to the lawyer, the DIS has not returned the property seized and has since indicated that they want them ( Anthony and Tshekedi) again. He said this can however not happen because the duo is in South Africa and as their lawyer, will not assist the DIS in that regard.
He stated that by now it should be known what the intention of the DIS is. Tladi was responding to an enquiry from Justice Isaac Lesetedi who had wanted to know if the properties have been returned or what the progress was so far since its almost a year since the property were seized.
Tladi has argued that Anthony is not party to the investigations being carried out against the former President. He stated that there is nowhere in the affidavit where Anthony is linked or associated with the case. He told the court that the search warrant was not executable against his client.
“We have made arguments on the validity of the search warrant. If the search warrant is issued against a person, first it must pass certain jurisdictional facts. It has to first have the name of a person. The high court should have ordered for the return of the goods. The property was taken with no reasonable suspicion. The search warrant failed the common law safeguards”.
Thabiso Olaotse representing the state indicated that the High Court judge made a finding that the warrant was wide enough to cover everything. He said this does not make the case appealable. He argued that there has to be a balancing act between the rights of the appellant and the state being allowed to investigate offences.
According to Olaotse, at the end of the investigations, the property may be returned to Anthony. He told the court that the ruling from the high court did not deviate from the ISS Act.
“The investigating officer may want to inspect the computer seized and see if it has any information that is needed in the investigation in relation to the firearms. There was reasonable suspicion to have the computer seized.
“The investigators also knew upon arrival at Kenmoir Farm that the premises were occupied by the third party. Had they known before, they could have included the Appelant. So, what they did they continued to search the premises based on the strength of the search warrant,” Olaotse argued.
He added that the high court weighed the public interest and correctly issued the warrant. It is thus humbly submitted that the search warrant was legally executable against the personal property of the Appellant which was found on Kenmoir Farm, he told the court.