What began as a lucrative P1.5 billion water project has now exploded into one of Botswana’s most vicious legal battles with the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) being accused of court defiance, abuse of power and a coordinated attempt to block a citizen-owned company from securing a government contract.
At the centre of the controversy is a mega water infrastructure project now suspended following intervention by the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC). But lawyers representing Tawana Joint Venture (Tawana JV), the contractor at the heart of the dispute, have launched an attack against government as they accuse officials at the government enclave of deliberately frustrating court orders to prevent the company from securing the contract.
In a letter dated 7 May 2026, Ministry of Water and Human Settlement’s acting permanent secretary iNchidzi Mmolawa informed Tawana JV that the procurement process had been suspended after the ministry allegedly received instructions from the DCEC.
‘The Ministry has received an instruction from the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime directing the suspension of the above procurement process pending investigations,’ wrote Mmolawa. He further stated that the DCEC had allegedly obtained written authority from the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) under Section 107(4) of the Public Procurement Act to halt the process. But Tawana JV’s lawyers, Jeremiah Tladi and Co, immediately challenged the legality of the suspension and demanded urgent disclosure of all documents allegedly authorising the move. The company’s lawyers argued that the suspension directly contradicted binding court orders issued by the High Court and later confirmed by the Court of Appeal. ‘We further attach the Order of the High Court dated 24 February 2025 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 27 March 2026 confirming that Order,’ attorney Tebogo Tladi stated.
He added that; ‘Those orders required the Accounting Officer to procure contract placement within 21 days and remain extant and binding.’ Tladi argued that neither the DCEC nor any state institution possessed legal authority to suspend or override subsisting court orders. ‘No statutory body, including DCEC, has the power in law to suspend, override, or frustrate the operation of a subsisting High Court order confirmed on appeal,’ Tladi charged. The lawyers further demanded answers on whether the DCEC was aware of the existing court orders when issuing its alleged directive and whether the anti-corruption agency intended withdrawing the instruction to avoid what Tawana JV describes as continued contempt of court. The dispute escalated after Deputy Attorney General Joao Salbany entered the fray in defence of the government’s position.
In a response, Salbany rejected allegations of contempt and argued that the ministry was merely complying with statutory oversight requirements governing procurement integrity. ‘The Court has ordered ‘contract placement,’ which is a procedural step within the broader procurement process,’ Salbany wrote. ‘It has not awarded a completed contract, nor has it issued the statutory oversight powers of relevant authorities.’ Salbany insisted that complying with the DCEC directive could not amount to wilful contempt because the government remained bound by procurement laws and anti-corruption oversight mechanisms. But Tawana JV responded with even more explosive allegations, accusing both the Ministry and the Attorney General’s Chambers of pursuing a long-running agenda to deny the contract to a citizen-owned company. ‘The Ministry and your office have, without exception, pursued a single strategic objective: that the tender should not be awarded to Tawana JV,’ Tladi wrote in another letter. He cited previous findings by the Court of Appeal, which reportedly criticised the conduct of former accounting officer Dr Kekgonne Baipoledi.
According to Tladi, the Court of Appeal described Baipoledi’s conduct as ‘egregious,’ accused her of being ‘less than candid’ under oath and found evidence of ‘a scheme to favour CCECC/ZGEC while being blind to a 100 percent citizen contractor.’ Tladi further accused the Attorney General’s Chambers of inventing legal theories to justify delays in awarding the contract. He added that; ‘The position is, with respect, illogical: contract placement that places no contract.’ Tawana JV’s lawyers suspect that the alleged DCEC intervention may not have been independently initiated at all, but rather solicited by ministry officials and legal advisors as contempt proceedings intensified. ‘Our client reasonably suspects that the alleged DCEC instruction was solicited by the Accounting Officer on the advice of your office rather than initiated independently by the DCEC,’ Tladi alleged. The lawyers argued that the timing of the anti-corruption intervention was deeply suspicious because the DCEC had allegedly remained inactive for 17 months following an earlier procurement tribunal referral involving the same tender. According to Tladi, the DCEC only moved aggressively after contempt proceedings were launched against senior ministry officials accused of refusing to comply with court orders. Tladi also accused government officials of humiliating the executives and lawyers of Tawana JC during a scheduled meeting at the Ministry of Water and Human Settlement.
According to Tladi, the company, its directors and legal team waited at the ministry offices for a scheduled meeting on 7 May, only to discover that officials had instead dispatched suspension letters elsewhere while avoiding face-to-face engagement. ‘The composite picture is not one of a Ministry and Attorney General’s Chambers in good faith engagement with a citizen contractor vindicated by the highest court,’ Tladi said. He added that, ‘It is one of Government officials coordinating an administrative response off-stage while the citizen sits in the lobby.’ Tladi warned that it intends joining the DCEC Director General, the PPRA Chief Executive Officer and potentially the Acting Attorney General personally into ongoing contempt proceedings before the High Court. He also insists that the company is not opposed to genuine anti-corruption investigations.
‘What our client does not accept,’ the lawyer stated adding that it ‘is the deployment of the machinery of investigation, this late, against the very citizen contractor whom the courts have vindicated.’