18 Oct 2022

The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in a case in which Anthony Khama is challenging a High Court decision which found that a search and seizure warrant executed at Kenmoir Farm by the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) was applicable against him.

 Acting on a search and seizure warrant against Lt Gen. Seretse Khama Ian Khama, Mr Sehunelo Khunou and Colonel Isaac Kgosi, the DIS in October last year searched and seized properties at Kenmoir Farm.

Among the items seized were external hard drives, webbly and scoot pellet gun, air gun, rifle, ammunition and laptops.

The farm in the search warrant was listed as Lt Gen Khama’s residence, although it was used by his younger brother, Anthony as his residence.

However, on Monday when appearing before Justices Tebogo Tau, Isaac Lesetedi and Singh Walia of the Court of Appeal, Attorney Mr Tebogo Tladi for the appellant said the search and seizure warrant was unlawful as it did not list the appellant as one of the persons being investigated or whose property was affected by the warrant.

 “None of his personal belongings were listed as property being sought pursuant to the search warrant,” he said. Mr Tladi added that the appellant’s name or any of the firearms registered in his name were not mentioned in the affidavit nor the search warrant, therefore, he said that made the search and seizure warrant against his property unconstitutional.  He added that none of the items seized at his place belonged to either Lt Gen Khama, Mr Khunou or Colonel Kgosi who were named in the search warrant.

 Mr Tladi said after his property were searched and seized, the appellant approached the judgeon urgency, seeking an order that the warrant was not enforceable against him, his property or that of his immediate family and that his property be returned.

Nonetheless, he said the judge dismissed the application saying it was not urgent and further reasoned that the orders sought by the appellant were incompetent insofar as the search warrant had not been set aside and that the appellant was not party to the search warrant.

 For his part, attorney Mr Thabiso Olatotse for the DIS and the attorney general who are the first and second respondent respectively, said the search warrant was wide enough to cover the appellant ‘s property.

 He said the investigating officer was within the confines of the law when seizing the appellant’s properties as they could help in the investigations.

Mr Olatotse said when on the scene, the investigating officer did not have all the details of the crime, hence he had to gather whatever could help the investigation. 

Relating to the computer seized from the appellant’s home, he said the investigating team wanted to examine it in relation to the information that might have been received.

 “There was reasonable suspicion for him (investigating officer) to seize the properties including the computer,” he added.

 Mr Olatotse further added that the fact that the warrant of arrest did not name the appellant, did not  mean that it could not be executed against him, hence the High Court was correct. ENDS