FIRED BHC EXECUTIVES STANDING IN MINISTER’S WAY

Three senior Botswana Housing Corporation executives allege they were purged after standing in the way of procurement and governance decisions they considered improper. Their High Court application challenges the legality of their dismissal and raises ques tions about authority following the dissolution of the board .

Three senior Botswana Housing Corporation (BHC) executives have approached the High Court seeking to interdict the termination of their employment contracts, which they allege was unlawful and e xecuted without proper authority.

Pogiso Thapelo, former Chief Corporate Counsel, Richard Chilisa, Director of Risk and Compliance, and Samantha Chabata, Head of Information Technology, filed an urg ent application on Tuesday, June 23, seeking an order fo r the matter to be heard on an urgent basis.

The application cites Acting General Manager Professor Selinah Busang as the first respondent and BHC as the second respondent.

The three applicants occupi ed senior executive positions within the corporation. Ac co rding to their papers, one of the executives earned a basic annual salary of P551,020.92, equivalent to about P50,000 per month, excluding benefits. These included a 25 percent retention allowance, a kilometrage allowance of P93,648 per annum, a housing al lowance of P162,077.27 per annum and a market parity allowance calculated at 35 percent of basic salary.

In their application, the applicants seek an interim order directing Busang and BHC to show c ause why the decision to issue “Early Release from Contr ac t of Employment” letters should not be declared unlawful.

They further ask the court to review and set aside the decision, and to declare the termination unlawful, invalid and of no force or effect .

The appli cants also seek an order confirming that they remain employees of BHC and are entitled to continue performing their duties without interference. They additionally request that BHC be ordered to pay the costs of the application.

They further seek an order i nterdicting Busang from interfering with thei r access to BHC premises, work equipment, digital systems and internal platforms during working hours.

The trio is represented by Collins Chilisa Consultants, led by Managing Attorney Mboki Chilisa.

A ccording to the applicants’ affidavits, Busang issued co rrespondence on June 19 purporting to release them from employment with immediate effect and instructing them to surrender institutional property.

The applicants state that Thapelo and Chabata receive d identical letters on the same date.

“We were also then locked out of the entire information technology system and network access,” the applicants state in their affidavits.

They further allege that they instructed their attorneys, who immediately wrote t o BHC challenging the validity of the termination and in dicating that they would continue reporting for duty. The applicants state that although they continued to report to work, they remained locked out of BHC systems.

A central issue raised in the applic ation concerns the authority to termin ate senior executi ves following the dissolution of the BHC Board.

The applicants state that on June 5, 2026, BHC publicly announced that its Board had been dissolved with effect from June 4.

They further allege that as at June 19, when the termination deci sion was taken, th e Board had not been reconstituted.

Thapelo argues in his founding affidavit that this is legally significant because the Botswana Housing Corporation Act vests authority over the appointment and dism issal of senior officers in a properly constituted Board of Directors.

Section 13 of the BHC Act, Cap 74:03, provides that the Board, with ministerial approval, appoints the General Manager and determines staff establishment, conditions of employment, and the appointment and dismissal of senio r officers upon re commendation of the General Manager.

Thapelo argues that the statutory framework places employment authority over senior officers in the Board as a collective body and not in any individual acting alo ne.

According to Thapelo, the General Manager derives au thority from the Board and operates strictly within that delegated framework.

“Once the Board ceased to exist, the statutory chain of authority governing senior employment decisions was interrupted en tirely. There was no lawful structure remaining capable of exercising dismissal powers over senior executives,” Thapelo states in his affidavit.

He further questions Busang’s authority, noting that she was acting in the position of General Manager and not substantively appointed.

The applicant s also allege that the governance structure at BHC had been weakened by the departure or removal of approximately seven senior executives over the past 12 months, which they say affected institutional oversight and con tinuity.

Thapelo further relies on Cla use 8.5 of the BHC Human Resources framework, which he states provides that employees within salary Bands 1 to 3 may only be appointed or dismissed by the Board.

“The positions we occupy, as is clear from our contracts , are Band 3 positions. Accordingly, o ur appointments an d dismissals are expressly reserved to the Board and cannot be effected by any other authority, whether acting or otherwise,” he states.

The applicants also allege that Busang’s appointment as Acting General Manager on June 19 was unlawfu l, contrary to Sec tion 13(1) of the BHC Act, which states that only a Board may appoint a General Manager.

They further allege that they were not given an opportunity to make representations before the termination deci sion was taken.

“It follows that even if it is as sumed t hat the f irst r espondent has authority to terminate our contracts of employment, such termination was tainted by procedural unfairness flowing from a failure to comply with the audi alteram partem pri nciple,” Thapelo states.

The applicants further a llege t hat Busang was appointed Chief Operations Officer with effect from February 1, 2026, and was later elevated within BHC. They also allege that her remuneration exceeded applicable pay scales at the cor poration.

They claim that a special remuneration arrange ment was approved on the basis of documentation linked to a company owned by her husband. They further allege that she had previously been dismissed from the Botswana Interna tional University of Scien ce and Technology (B I U ST).

The applicants also al lege th at the Minister had previously requested her appointment as Acting General Manager, which the BHC Board rejected.

They further allege that after assuming office, Busang stated she was acting to protec t the interests of the line Minister, and that sh e subse quently issued threats of dismissal and used abusive language toward colleagues. They say grievances were raised by employees, including one by Regional Director South Pinky Gobuamang.

According to th e applicants, these concerns led the BHC Board to issue Busang with a show-cause letter on March 16, 2026, asking her to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken.

The applicants further allege that following this development, the Minister, Assis tant Minister, Acting Permanent Secretary and Dep uty Per manent Secretary attended a Board meeting on March 17, where the Minister allegedly directed that no disciplinary action be taken against the CEO .

The applicants also raise concerns over procurement p rocesses under Busang’s leadership.

They allege that at Kgale, under the Bonno Housing Scheme, contractors were engaged to carry out site clearance and geotechnical surveys at a cost exceeding P1.4 million without quotations, appointment letters or written agreements being in place before work commenced.

The y s tate that the matter was flagged by Internal Audit. An extract they rely on states that two contractors for the Kgale 3000 project were engaged without required procurement documentation, including re questing memoranda, award letters, contractor accepta nce letters or Procurement Oversight Unit minutes.

The applicants further allege that Busang sought to appoint contractors for bulk infrastructure works at Kgale without a competitive tender process, in breach of the Public Procurement Act.

They state that , a s members of the BHC Investment Committee, they assessed the proposals and prepared recommendations highlighting what they describe as commercial risks.

According to the applicants, their objections t o the proposals appear to have led to tensions with t he Acting General Manager.

On June 22, 2026, Busang appeared before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, where she alleged that the applicants were dismissed for misleading the Board and sabotagi ng BHC.

The applicants reject these allegations.

“For th e record, we have never at any point been called to answer any allegations of misleading the Board. We have at all times advised the Board to the best of our ability. Highlighting commercial risk to t he Board cannot by any stretch of the imagination be sai d to be misleading the B oard or sabotaging the BHC,” they state.

The applicants argue that their dismissal was aimed at removing resistance to procurement decisions and weakening internal governance s tructures.

They maintain that they have a contractual ri ght to remain in employm ent until their fixed-term contracts expire in January and March 2027, subject only to lawful termination.

They further allege that public statements surrounding their dismissa l have created a narrative of misconduct, which they say has damaged their reput ations.

The applicants also cite the Employment and Labour Relations Act, which is due to come into effect on July 1, 2026, arguing that it protects legitimate expectations rel ating to fixed-term contracts.

“If we are not in employm ent on 1 July 2026 we wi ll be permanently deprived of an enforceable legitimate expectation that our contracts would have been renewed beyond the end of their terms in January and March 2027,” they st ate.

The three applicants occupy senior governance roles within BHC, responsible for risk management, compliance, legal services and information technology oversight.

They argue that their removal, at a time when the Board is dissolved and several senior e xecutives have departed, significantly weakens governanc e, oversight and institu tional continuity within the corporation.