- Tafa says they warned Jacobs to exclude them in Masisi, BDP case
- Jacobs lawyer says Tafa is not telling the truth, says Khama has no qualms
- We declined to write a confirmatory affidavit for Jacobs and his lawyer-Tafa
- Jacobs lawyer says meetings with Khama and Tafa were cordial and successful
TEFO PHEAGE
Former president, Ian Khama and his lawyer, Parks Tafa are angry and disappointed at being dragged into the Kamal Jacobs case challenging the legitimacy of Masisi’s presidency. The duo claim that they do not know why they were cited in the first instance, in a case whose motive is not known to them. This was revealed and confirmed by Tafa in an interview with this publication.
Tafa described the narration that they are the masterminds and sponsors of the suit as blatant lies meant to discredit them. “How on earth can we sponsor and direct such an application? I can confirm that we met with those guys in December and we outrightly refused to depose a confirmatory affidavit for them and further asked them to leave us out of the suit but they went ahead and still cited us,” Tafa said. A confirmatory affidavit serves to confirm the version stated in the main application in so far as it relates to the person confirming. Tafa said they did not understand the significance of their support to the case.
Jacobs made an application to court stating that Masisi does not have power to appoint any party structure because Khama has not resigned as the party leader. Jacobs who lost BDP primaries to Dr Thapelo Matsheka for the Lobatse constituency said that Masisi’s legitimacy to the BDP presidency is questionable.
Khama is on record saying that he is still the BDP president as he has not resigned.
Speaking to The Botswana Gazette, Tafa notes that had the court ordered that his client file court process, they would have gladly obliged to respect the court’s decision. According to him, their absence from the case was because they did not associate with the case or litigants. “I do not know Kamal Jacobs and his lawyer and there is no way I could have contributed in such a suit. I wish I could discuss this further, but the case is still sub judice,” he said.
Tafa reveals that he has been watching the case unfold from a distance and is alive to the insinuations by the media and some within the public that he and Khama are the invisible hands behind the application, “we disassociate ourselves from that application and its intentions and possible successes or failures,” he said.
Jacobs’s lawyer, Kagisano Tamocha however says he doesn’t understand what Tafa is on about and claims that at all their meetings between Khama, Tafa, himself and his client were cordial and successful.
“It is not telling truth that there were ever such demands because it is every person’s constitutional right to seek redress at court when he feels aggrieved and he may cite anybody whom he sees useful or interested to his case,” said Tamocha who continues that “moreover Khama could have raised the concern with us and he has not.”
Tamocha dismisses the statement by Tafa that they wanted a confirmatory affidavit from Khama, “we cited them as respondents to deny or confirm that indeed he is still the party president,” he said in an interview with this publication.
Tamocha confirms that they held various meetings with Khama and Tafa but said he was not ready to divulge what they discussed at such meetings. “Tafa is the one who called us on the new year for the last meeting informing us that Khama is still holidaying in Okavango and that we will meet when he arrives.”
The court will deliver a ruling on the presidential immunity, urgency and other matters on Wednesday according to Tamocha.