05 Dec 2021

 The Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) has lodged an urgent petition with the Court of Appeal against a High Court ruling that denied it’s application for a warrant to search for and seize evidence at State House number four. 

The DIS approached the Court of Appeal (CoA) on December 3 seeking to turn the court aquo’s ruling which effectively prevented the DIS from searching former president Lt Dr Seretse Khama Ian Khama’s official residence, namely Plot 260/261 Gaborone. 

Appearing for DIS before Justice Monametsi Gaongalelwe of the CoA, Attorney Sifelani Thapelo argued that they applied for an urgent hearing against the whole judgment and order of the High Court that Justice Rainer Busang granted on November 21. 

“The application also seeks leave to have the merits of the appeal heard as soon as reasonably possible after the hearing of this application, in the event they are successful,” Mr Thapelo said. 

He added that the application was necessary because of the immediate, substantial and prejudicial effect of the order of the High Court.  He explained that the order of the lower court had stalled investigations against the respondent. 

He added that although the High Court had previously awarded DIS search and seize warrants at some of the respondent's residences, State House number four was somehow omitted from the list. 

Mr Thapelo said upon realisation, permission was sought from former president Khama to search the premises, be he declined. 

In addition, he said the DIS later found ammunition and firearms in its armoury at the same plot, which raised questions, as the arms were not there before. 

“We are concerned as to who smuggled those firearms and ammunition into the armoury, ” he said. 

He said it was perplexing that the respondent was not perturbed. He explained the search and seize warrants were needed to determine who smuggled the arms into the armoury. 

Mr Thapelo said the DIS also wanted to access CCTV cameras at the premises. He also told the CoA that the residence and the armory had been sealed, which was an inconvenience to the residents. 

However, defense attorney, Mr Unoda Mac argued the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. 

He said it was common cause that the omission was noted on October 23, yet the application for search and seize was filed on November 19, which was almost a month later. 

Mr Mac said if the application was indeed urgent, it could have been filed sooner, saying “if there was urgency, it was waived by the applicant himself.” 

Further, he noted that the applicant had agreed to come and collect firearms registered in the applicant’s names, which they postponed and later abandoned. 

Attorney Mac said the fact that the respondent had admitted to having found firearms and ammunition in the armoury and sealed it indicated that the search had been carried out. 

“They want a search warrant to search their own armoury, manned by their own officers. They have already searched it,” stated Mr Mac.  He said the applicant knew what was in the armoury and added that the respondent never complained about inconvenience caused by the fact it was sealed or that he had no access to the residence. 

Further, he said, the DIS had failed to file the list of the findings of the previous searches granted by the court, adding the case had no prospects of success, hence his argument the appeal was not urgent. 

The Court has reserved judgment.  BOPA