The heads of Botswana’s anti-corruption watchdog and procurement regulator have narrowly avoided being dragged into contempt of court proceedings that could have exposed them to possible imprisonment after Tawana Joint Venture (Tawana JV) abruptly abandoned its High Court application and agreed to pay legal costs.
The dramatic turnaround follows an urgent application filed on 22 May 2026 in which Tawana JV sought to join PPRA Chief Executive Officer Tumelo Motsumi and DCEC Director General Bothale Makgekgenene to ongoing contempt of court proceedings arising from the controversial Ncojane Water Supply Tender.
The contempt case stems from Tawana JV’s allegation that government officials had failed to comply with judgments of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including the appellate court’s 27 March 2026 order directing that the water supply contract be placed for signing.
Had the application succeeded, the two senior officials would have been cited in proceedings aimed at determining whether there had been deliberate defiance of court orders, a process that, if contempt is ultimately established, can carry severe penalties including fines or imprisonment.
Instead, the bid collapsed before it could be argued.
At a status hearing before Justice Khanyago on 19 June 2026, Tawana JV withdrew the application in its entirety and tendered costs in favour of PPRA and its CEO, bringing an end to the immediate legal threat against the two institutions’ top executives.
Court papers show that Tawana JV had sought sweeping disclosure orders against PPRA and DCEC, demanding internal communications, investigative records, forensic analyses, preliminary findings, procurement records, reports, source materials and other documents allegedly relied upon in raising concerns over purported forgery or irregularities surrounding the tender.
Court papers show that Tawana JV had sought sweeping disclosure orders against PPRA and DCEC, demanding internal communications, investigative records, forensic analyses, preliminary findings, procurement records, reports, source materials and other documents allegedly relied upon in raising concerns over purported forgery or irregularities surrounding the tender.
The joint venture also sought access to assessments, reports and analyses prepared by DCEC, PPRA, the Ministry of Water and Human Settlements and the Attorney General’s Chambers relating to the suspension of the tender and the contempt proceedings.
However, lawyers representing PPRA and Motsumi launched a legal challenge against the application.
Through Rantao Attorneys, PPRA argued that neither the authority nor its CEO were parties to the original contempt proceedings and that the Court of Appeal order imposed no obligations on them.
The regulator further contended that Tawana JV was improperly attempting to use a joinder application as a backdoor discovery process to obtain confidential investigative material unrelated to the contempt proceedings before the court.
PPRA maintained that the suspension of the procurement process, approved by Motsumi, was an independent administrative decision that could not amount to contempt of court.
The authority also argued that many of the requested documents related to confidential regulatory and investigative processes and were therefore protected from disclosure.
In addition, PPRA accused Tawana JV of embarking on what lawyers described as a “fishing expedition” by seeking access to extensive documentation before establishing any legal basis for relief against the regulator or its chief executive.
According to PPRA, the application constituted an abuse of court process because the central question before the court was whether government officials had complied with the Court of Appeal judgment-not the legality of PPRA’s regulatory decisions.
