Retired Botswana Defence Force (BDF) soldiers have accused government of deliberately frustrating efforts to resolve their pension grievances. In papers before the High Court, the retirees argue that the Office of the President (OP) has failed to facilitate a peaceful march and the delivery of a petition to President Duma Boko despite being formally approached early this year.
In a founding affidavit,former BDF commander Lieutenant General Gaolatllhe Galebotswe says the retirees want to march peacefully to the Office of the President and hand over a petition to the President, who is also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, over unresolved grievances surrounding the 1/373 Transfer Value Enhancement Payments and the migration of BDF members to the Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF).
The retirees say they approached the Office of the President on 8 June 2026 requesting that it receive their petition. However, months later, no official, date or venue had been designated to facilitate the handover.
‘The Respondents accept the Applicants’ right to petition and say the Office of the President ‘will’ facilitate a senior officer to receive it but have done nothing to give effect to the undertaking,’ Galebotswe states in his affidavit.
The applicants have consequently approached the courts seeking an order compelling government to facilitate their constitutional right to petition the President and exercise their freedom of assembly.
They want the court to declare their rights under sections 12 and 13 of the Constitution and direct the Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) to designate an official to receive the petition, fix a date, time and venue, and issue the necessary acknowledgement.
They are also seeking an order directing the Commissioner of Police to determine their procession permit application within the Police Service’s own published timelines and provide the necessary police escort and security.
As an alternative, they want an order allowing the procession to proceed and the petition to be received by the fourth respondent.
The applicants emphasise that they are not asking the court to determine the underlying pension dispute but to intervene in what they describe as government’s failure to respect their constitutional rights and honour the commitments made during negotiations.
The planned march is the culmination of what Galebotswe describes as a prolonged and increasingly frustrating attempt to resolve the retirees’ grievances through negotiations rather than litigation.
He says the applicants entered the out-of-court settlement process in good faith and relying on the negotiations, refrained from pursuing their pension litigation to finality.
‘Good faith has not been reciprocated,’ he states.
According to the affidavit, the settlement process was founded on agreed rules of engagement, which required both parties to participate on an equal footing through their duly mandated representatives, under the chairmanship and through the offices of an independent chairperson.
However, Galebotswe accuses the Office of the Accountant General, the Botswana Defence Force and the Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund of conducting the process in a manner characterised by inordinate delays since about July 2025, to his prejudice and Others Negotiating Team.
The retirees say negotiations were held on 22 and 23 September 2025 under the chairmanship of retired Justice Abednego Tafa.
During those discussions, the parties allegedly agreed that the transition of BDF members from the Defined Benefit Fund to the Defined Contribution Fund was ‘irregular’.
To address the irregularity, it was agreed that an independent actuary would be engaged to determine the financial impact of the policy decision.
The parties also agreed that court proceedings would be stayed while efforts to reach an out-of-court settlement were pursued.
However, the applicants now claim that government subsequently undermined the very framework that had made the negotiations possible by sidelining the independent chairperson.
The affidavit identifies the alleged termination of retired Justice Tafa’s role as a critical turning point in the dispute.
On or about 9 December 2025, members of the Government Negotiating Team and the applicants’ representatives reportedly convened a meeting before the Minister for State President, Defence, Justice and Security.
At that meeting, the Government Negotiating Team allegedly communicated that Tafa’s mandate as independent chairperson had ended following the conclusion of the September 2025 negotiations.
The applicants argue that this effectively removed the safeguard that had guaranteed neutrality and fairness in the settlement process.
‘The Independent Chairperson was the guarantor of the neutrality and the fairness of the process,’ Galebotswe states.
He adds that;’To bypass him was to remove the safeguard upon which the Applicant agreed to suspend the pursuit of the litigation.’
The retirees contend that government cannot expect them to remain committed to a settlement process while simultaneously dismantling the structures and safeguards upon which their participation was premised.
They further argue that the negotiations, which were supposed to be completed within three months, by 15 October 2025, remain unresolved, with no clear indication of when they will be concluded.
‘In substance, the negotiations have been collapsed unilaterally by Government, whilst the Applicants remain held to a process from which they are being shut out,’ the affidavit states.
The alleged withholding of information required by the appointed actuarial firm has further deepened the dispute.
As part of the settlement process, Alexander Forbes Financial Services Botswana was engaged as the actuarial company responsible for completing the enhanced transfer value calculations and determining benefits due to beneficiaries.
According to Galebotswe, Alexander Forbes wrote to government agencies on 30 June 2026 requesting information necessary to undertake its assignment.
However, the agencies allegedly failed to provide the required information.
On 29 July 2026, the firm reportedly issued another correspondence, which, according to the affidavit, was substantially similar to its earlier request.
Despite repeated requests by Alexander Forbes and the applicants, the government agencies have allegedly failed or refused to provide the required data, or supplied it only partially and after considerable delays.
The applicants say no explanation, let alone a reasonable one, has been provided for the failure to furnish the information.
‘In the circumstances, the Applicants are driven to the conclusion that the refusal and delay are deliberate,’ Galebotswe states.