27 Feb 2022

Former president, Lt Gen Dr Seretse Khama Ian Khama, will on Friday, know if government would reimburse him for his personal trip to Dalai Lama in India in 2019.

Judge President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Tebogo Tau announced on February 18, in a panel which comprised Justice Singh Walia and Justice Bashi Moesi.

Government had appealed last year’s High Court ruling, which favoued Lt Gen Khama.

It was ruled that he should be reimbursed for the trip to Dalai Lama, which he undertook without government funding.

The High Court had ruled that former president was entitled to use government owned modes of transport, in particular air transportation and he could not be denied such.

The High Court had also found that during his visit to India, he was also entitled to be provided with personal security officers by the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS).

The court had also found that government was liable to reimburse Lt Gen Khama of all his travel costs.

However in the ppeal, Attorney Charles Gulubane for the state said the court committed a grievous error to grant the defamatory relief relating to the statutory provisions as it did when the legal positions were clearly articulated in the statutes.

He said the statute did not impose any strict liability on the part of the state hence the judge erred in imposing strict liability on the state.

Mr Gulubane added that President Mokgweetsi Masisi had clear discretion in the matter, adding that the statutes gave him the discretionary authority over the requests.

 “Whenever a statute gives discretionary powers, such discretionary power can also be exercised to decline a request”.
 

Furthermore, he said government had requested to be given at least six months’ notice prior to the travel in order to arrange for any trip.

He said the visit to the Dalai Lama was against the government’s stance on the one China policy, adding that after the visit, President Dr Masisi had to visit China to mend the relations.

Therefore, he said the interest and rights of the former president should not be allowed to supersede that of the country.

However, Advocate Mpho Garebatho said the appellant’s grounds for appeal are unwieldy and repetitive.

He stated that the appellant grounds of appeal were that the court below erred in law and misdirected itself in granting declamatory orders on matters clearly stated in statutes, saying such showed lack of appreciation of the nature and purpose of declamatory orders. ENDS