The national security defenses employed by Peter Fana Magosi, Director General of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) are under judicial scrutiny as the High Court considers allegation raised by suspended DIS official Pulane Pretty Kgoadi.
The matter, filed before the Lobatse High Court, sees Kgoadi seeking to challenge the disciplinary process initiated against her by the Board of Inquiry II, chaired by Professor Moitshepi Motlhanka. Other respondents include Dr Ontiretse Mine, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Moakofi Modisenyane, Magosi himself, Permanent Secretary to the President Emma Peloetleste, and appointed investigator Tebogo Bagopi.
Central to the proceedings is the extent to which the DIS can rely on national security provisions to avoid responding substantively to allegations of misconduct and impropriety. In a supplementary filing, Kgoadi’s7 legal team argued that Magosi’s affidavit—citing his attestation of office and national security concerns-fails to justify his refusal to address the claims laid out in her founding affidavit.
“The lawmaker did not envisage that national security provisions would be applied to avoid confronting allegations in court,” the filing notes, referencing Section 20 of the ISSA. Without a formal certificate from Magosi or the Central Intelligence Committee, the court may view his claims as insufficient.
Paragraph 6 of Magosi’s affidavit asserts that he is constrained from disclosing the identities of DIS members or commenting on ongoing disciplinary proceedings, insisting that his actions were conducted in good faith. However, Kgoadi’s attorneys argue that the Intelligence and Security Services Act (ISSA) allows the Director General to certify specific information as injurious to public interest or prejudicial to national security, rather than using national security as a blanket shield against scrutiny.
“The lawmaker did not envisage that national security provisions would be applied to avoid confronting allegations in court,” the filing notes, referencing Section 20 of the ISSA. Without a formal certificate from Magosi or the Central Intelligence Committee, the court may view his claims as insufficient.
The filing also draws on precedent, notably the 2025 ruling in Kuda Portia Malikongwa v Attorney General, DIS & Botswana Police Service, where Justice Kebonang held that allegations of corruption and embezzlement within DIS are not protected by national security laws. In that case, the court emphasized accountability over institutional secrecy, particularly where public funds and procurement irregularities are concerned.
In addition, Kgoadi’s attorneys challenged a supporting affidavit by Pauline Ontumetse Tsiang, the secretary of Board of Inquiry II, which defended the Board’s handling of preliminary objections in her disciplinary proceedings. Kgoadi’s legal team argued that Tsiang, as a secretary and non-member of the panel, lacked authority to depose to procedural matters, rendering portions of her affidavit irrelevant and subject to being struck out.
