A simmering legal dispute between veteran labour activist Johnson Motshwarakgole and senior public official Andrew D’bois Motsamai escalated this week after Motshwarakgole rejected demands to retract remarks described by Motsamai’s lawyers as ‘injurious, malicious and defamatory.’
In a response, Motshwarakgole’s attorneys, Charles Colombia Consultancy, dismissed the demand issued by Otto Itumeleng Law Chambers as ‘misconceived, legally untenable, and without merit,’ effectively calling what they characterised as an attempt to intimidate their client into silence.
The dispute arises from an urgent court application in which Motshwarakgole cited Motsamai as the ninth respondent while opposing his appointment to a senior position as secretary of the Public Service Bargaining Council. In the founding affidavit, Motshwarakgole alleged that there were ‘unresolved and serious allegations of financial impropriety arising from [Motsamai’s] tenure at Botswana Public Employees Union.’ Motsamai’s legal team argues that these remarks tarnish his integrity and credibility.
Motsamai’s lawyers further objected to statements made by Motshwarakgole during a press conference held on 2 February 2026, where he publicly questioned Motsamai’s integrity. They demanded that the statements be expunged and retracted by 16:00 on the same day the demand letter was served.
However, Motshwarakgole’s attorneys rejected both the substance and the urgency of the demand.
‘We note, at the outset, that the timeline imposed was wholly unreasonable,’ the response letter states adding that Motsamai had already been aware of the affidavit’s contents since 1 February.
‘At the outset, our Client denies that any of the statements complained of are defamatory, unlawful, malicious, or actuated by any intention to injure your Client’s reputation,’ the letter continues.
The response argues that the statements were made within the context of active judicial proceedings and are therefore protected by legal privilege. ‘Our Client is advised that statements made in the course of court proceedings are privileged, provided that they are relevant to the issues before the Court, which is plainly the case herein,’ the attorneys wrote.
They further dismissed the demand to expunge or retract the affidavit, stating it was ‘legally untenable.’
On the press conference remarks, Motshwarakgole’s lawyers said their client merely raised concerns already in the public domain and acted ‘in good faith, in the public interest, and without making any false factual assertions.’
The letter also emphasised Motsamai’s status as a public figure. ‘Your Client is a public figure occupying a senior public office,’ the attorneys wrote adding that ‘fair comment on matters of public interest, including issues of governance, integrity, and accountability, is lawful and constitutionally protected.’
Motsamai’s legal team, however, maintains that the claims are misleading. They argue that he voluntarily relinquished the presidency of BOPEU in 2017 and that police investigations concluded in August 2022 without him being a subject of investigation. They insist he is ‘a fit and proper person who has been successfully vetted for the current management position in the Public Service.’
Despite this, Motshwarakgole has refused to retreat.
‘In the circumstances, our Client is not amenable to the demands set out. and accordingly declines to retract the statements complained of,’ the response states while reserving the right to defend the matter in court.