BPF oppose Butale’s latest court bid
Innocent Selatlhwa | Tuesday August 29, 2023 17:52
Butale has filed an urgent application seeking to stop the execution and implementation of decisions made by the BPF and its National Executive Committee (NEC) to suspend and expel him from the party, as well as his role as party president. He aims to delay these actions until the review application he filed concurrently to overturn the suspension and expulsion is resolved. “The respondents are interdicted from taking any steps to organise an election or to appoint and/or approve any other person or candidate as party president other than the applicant; alternatively if any such appointment is already extant, then such appointee be and is hereby interdicted from discharging the functions of the office of president of the BPF and/or otherwise hold himself out to be president of the BPF,” Butale wants the order to state. Additionally, he sought a preliminary court order (rule nisi), which would require the respondents to present themselves and explain why an official directive shouldn't be issued. This directive would compel the BPF, along with its NEC and disciplinary committee, to promptly furnish the Registrar and the legal representatives of the applicant with an exhaustive and unaltered record of all proceedings of the decisions surrounding the suspension and removal of the Applicant from his positions as a member and the BPF president.
This presentation of records is expected to take place within a seven-day timeframe from the present date. The respondents are set to present legal arguments against the application. Represented by Itumeleng Otto Attorneys, they will contend that the claimed urgency is a result of Butale's own undoing. Their stance is that Butale failed to act promptly on his rights. “After 50 days from being aware of his suspension from the BPF, the Applicant now approaches court on a certificate of urgency seeking a stay of the decision to suspend him from the BPF; After 41 days from being aware of his expulsion from the BPF, the applicant now approaches court on a certificate of urgency seeking a stay of the decision to expel him from the BPF; The urgency is self-created and the matter must be dismissed on this point, with an order of costs,” read the court papers.
The respondents will also contend that the applicant has significantly fallen short of meeting the prerequisites for urgency, as stipulated by the High Court rules. “No justification is made in the founding papers for the delay to institute the urgent application after 50 days of being aware of the decision to suspend him from the BPF. The court is left to speculate as to why the applicant delayed to institute these proceedings. The applicant slept on his rights and lied supine despite knowledge of the decisions he complains of,” they stated. The claimants further assert that Butale failed to inform the court that he had initiated urgent proceedings on August 15 before Justice Itumeleng Segopolo. In those proceedings, he sought the same reliefs as those being pursued in this case. However, Segopolo dismissed the case on August 22 with costs. “On August 15, 2023, the applicant approached Motlhabi.
He did this through the normal cause. He seeks to review and set aside the decision to suspend and expel him from BPF. Eight days later, he now seeks an interlocutory urgent stay of the decisions he has taken on review. Between August 15 and 23, 2023, the Applicant did not disclose to the court what had changed that triggered urgency in this matter. The basis of urgency is vague and bald,' they stated. The respondents also assert that the application is an abuse of the court process. In the previous case involving Kebonang, Butale had initially requested that the alleged suspension and consequent expulsion of the applicant be terminated. These actions were carried out through correspondence from Barulaganye Letang on July 4 and Tshekedi Khama on July 13. However, Kebonang rejected the plea for suspension, and the rationale for this was as follows: “The Applicant has failed to vitiate his suspension and subsequent expulsion in that such decisions were lawfully taken by the party’s appropriate forum, being the Disciplinary Committee.”
Furthermore, the respondents argue that Butale is now pursuing another suspension of the execution of decisions that have already been legally determined by a court of equal jurisdiction. “The applicants had initially appealed Kebonang’s decision in refusing with stay of execution. He noted an appeal with the court of appeal seeking a stay of execution of these decisions. While the matter was pending at appeal, he has filed a notice of abandonment of appeal of Kebonang and he is effectively taking no issue with the finding and judgment of Kebonang. Why he is now seeking a stay of execution of decisions which the High Court has pronounced itself on,” the respondents state.
The respondents additionally argue that Butale has yet to fully utilise the available avenues within the BPF constitution. They urge the court to exercise prudence and restraint, refraining from involvement in the internal political affairs of the party without first exhausting domestic remedies.