Khama fingers fallout with Masisi behind ‘derecognition’

Former president and Bagammangwato Kgosi, Ian Khama, has said his derecognition by the current administration is politically motivated.

Through his court paper reply, Khama has refuted claims by Minister of Local Government and Rural Development Kgotla Autlwetse that his appointment as Kgosi in 1979 was not gazetted.

Khama submits that former subsequent administrations of the Botswana government, under presidents Sir Ketumile Masire, Festus Mogae, and his own, recognised him as the Bamangwato Kgosi. He says it can only be political bitterness that he is now derecognised.

“Forty-five years later, the current administration of President Mokgweetsi Masisi now avers that Khama is not recognised by the government. “There is no legal or factual basis to this break away from tradition by the current administration except for mala fides and political grudges, which include, amongst others; the highly publicised fallout between Khama and President Masisi, Autlwetse’s appointor; the fact that Khama left the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) and joined the Botswana Patriotic Front, a move which dealt a significant blow to the BDP in the 2019 General Election; the fact that in the 2019 General Election, Autlwetse lost the Serowe North parliamentary seat as a BDP candidate after being decampaigned by Khama in the political arena,” reads the court papers.

Khama has dragged the minister before court demanding the installation of his chosen regent, Seretse Peter Khama.

The former president filed a case at the Maun High Court with Khama and Seretse Peter Khama as first and second applicants while the Minister and Attorney General are first and second respondents. Khama is represented by Abel Lawyers while Bogopa, Manewe, Tobedza & Co. represent the respondents.

He wants the minister to be ordered to appoint Seretse Peter Khama as Motshwarelela Bogosi (regent) of the Bagammangwato tribe by an appointing notice published in the Government Gazette.

He also wants the court to command the minister to publish the said appointing notice in the Gazette within 30 days of delivery of the court order.

Autlwetse had in his replying papers raised points of law to the effect that Khama is not the recognised Kgosi of the Bagammangwato tribe or that he failed to prove that he has legally been recognised as the Kgosi of Bagammangwato.

“Annexure ‘A’ is not a Notice that gazettes the recognition of the first applicant as the Chief of the Bagammangwato Tribe; There is, in fact, no Notice in the Government Gazette of May or June 1979 or otherwise that gazettes the recognition of the first applicant as Chief of the Bagammangwato tribe by the President; the first applicant is therefore not a person recognised as paramount chief capable of discharging the office of Kgosi,” Autlwetse’s attorneys submitted, praying for dismissal of the case.

Through his attorneys, Khama argues that the language used in the Gazette Notice dated June 5, 1979, annexed to Khama’s founding affidavit and marked A, is free from ambiguity.

“The respondents’ assertion that by the said gazette notice, President Sir Seretse Khama did not recognise the First Applicant as Chief of the Bagammangwato Tribe but only appointed Mokgacha Mokgadi as the tribal authority of the tribe, utterly crumbles when subjected to the developments of the Chieftainship Law of 1965 (Law No. 29 of 1965) between 1965 and 1979,” they state.

They further state that Section 5(2) of the Chieftainship Law of 1965 (Law No. 29 of 1965) provided that subject to the provisions of sections 6 and 8, Her Majesty’s Commissioner shall by notice published in the Gazette, recognise the person so designated as Chief of such tribe.

Further, they submit that between 1965 and 1979 the said Chieftainship Law of 1965 endured several amendments. The amendments that occurred during this period include the transfer of powers previously bestowed upon Her Majesty’s Commissioner to the President and the changing of the title Chieftainship Law of 1965 to Chieftainship Act. 1965 (Cap 41:01).

“Of crucial significance to this matter, is an amendment made to the said Chieftainship Act, 1965 (Cap 41:01) (previously known as the Chieftainship Law of 1965) in 1977. The said amendment introduced a new section to the principal act, namely section 6(1A),” they state. Section 6(1A) of the 1977 amendment provided as follows: “If the President considers that a person designated as Chief is, for any reason, unable to assume the chieftainship, he may recognise the person so designated as Chief but may appoint a tribal authority who shall hold office as such until the President considers the Chief is able to assume the chieftainship”.