The High Court is set to examine whether Director General of DIS, Peter Magosi, can invoke national security to shield himself from accountability
GAZETTE REPORTER
The Lobatse High Court is set to deliver a ruling in a contentious case involving the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS) and its Director General, Peter Fana Magosi, over allegations that national security claims are being used to avoid accountability in disciplinary proceedings.
The matter was brought by Pulane Kgoadi, who is challenging the handling of her disciplinary hearing in a case that names multiple respondents, including the Attorney General representing DIS, members of the Board of Inquiry, and investigators involved in the proceedings.
Kgoadi’s legal team, Monthe Marumo & Co, filed supplementary heads of argument on 10 November 2025 addressing two main issues: paragraph 6 of Magosi’s answering affidavit and the application to strike out portions of an affidavit filed by Pauline Ontumetse Tsiang, Secretary to the Board of Inquiry.
FORMAL CERTIFICATE
In his affidavit, Magosi argued that professional obligations and national security constraints prevented him from disclosing the identities of DIS members or discussing sensitive matters publicly.
He maintained that addressing the allegations could interfere with ongoing disciplinary processes and stressed that all actions were taken in good faith.
However, Kgoadi’s lawyers contend that under the Intelligence and Security Services Act (ISSA), the Director General must provide a formal certificate indicating that certain information is sensitive or prejudicial to national security.
PUBLIC INTEREST
They argue that in the absence of such certification, Magosi’s reliance on national security is legally insufficient.
“The lawmaker did not envisage that national security provisions would be applied to avoid confronting allegations in court,” they countered.
The case draws parallels with the recent ruling in Kuda Portia Malikongwa v Attorney General & Others where Justice Zein Kebonang found that corruption allegations could not be shielded under the ISSA and asserted that matters of public interest must be addressed in court regardless of national security claims.
Kgoadi’s legal team also challenged portions of Tsiang’s affidavit, arguing that as a secretary and non-member of the panel, she lacked authority to speak on procedural matters, making parts of her affidavit irrelevant.
SHIELD AGAINST ACCOUNTABILITY
The case is now before Justice Ranier Busang, who will determine whether the Director General of DIS can continue to rely on national security as a shield against substantive responses and the extent to which national security provisions can limit accountability in disciplinary proceedings.
In his affidavit, Magosi argued that professional obligations and national security constraints prevented him from disclosing the identities of DIS members or discussing sensitive matters publicly.