This was after CEDA obtained a temporary interdict against one Setlhomo Tshwanelang, whom the agency accused of posting several “false, malicious and defamatory” statements on its social media platforms, alleging excessive corruption. CEDA obtained a temporary court order last Wednesday, including prohibiting the individual from publishing or posting negative remarks against the agency. The agency requested that Tshwanelang be ordered to remove and delete posts from its social media platforms or any posts or publications directly or indirectly relating to the agency with immediate effect. Prior to the ban order, Tshwanelang had posted allegations on his social media of corruption within the development finance institution said to be headed by the latter’s director.

In response to the interdict obtained in his absence, through his lawyers at Dinokopila Mmipi Attorneys, Tshwanelang said in court documents filed that CEDA is a company limited by guarantee established by the government to provide support financial and technical to corporate citizens in Botswana, 100% funded by the government. According to him, its position is radically different from that of a private enterprise or a commercial company. Further, its functions and operations are an extension of the functions of government directed toward the economic empowerment of citizens and, therefore, its good name or reputation cannot be impaired by any statement of the type alleged against its directors, agents or employees. “In essence, it has no right to sue for defamation or damage to its reputation as a government entity. The normal means at its disposal to protect itself against damage to its reputation or the way in which it exercises its functions public functions pass through political action and not through litigation”, they can read in the newspapers. The lawyers explained that when attacks, valid or invalid, are made against individual agents or employees of the company, actions for defamation or damage to reputation are the purview of those individuals and not them. The newspapers also claim that the situation is aggravated by the fact that CEDA has not established in its court filings how the alleged statements are erroneous and prejudicial to it.

Further, he states that in CEDA’s founding affidavit filed in support of the interdict request, he alleged that several false, malicious and unfounded remarks regarding them, directly and indirectly, had been made on social media by the Tshwanelang, but denied that any of the purported excerpts of statements attached to the affidavit in any way reflect false, malicious and unfounded remarks against them. “On the contrary, the extracts from declarations attached by CEDA reflect the direction, management and/or operation of the latter by the people responsible for its operations. To this extent, there is no basis, in fact or in law, for her to be sued for defamatory statements made by the petitioner’s agents or employees in her personal capacity, nor does she have the right to sue part on the basis of alleged wrongful conduct committed against the agents and employees,” the newspapers said. The lawyers stressed that the agents or employees, if aggrieved, have the required legal capacity to sue in their own capacity On the fact that CEDA has no right to obtain an interdict, in response, according to court documents, the latter has no right, neither a case nor proof. which warrants protection by way of prohibition and even if it had such a right, there is no conduct on the part of the individual which violates the alleged right “There is no fear of harm as the. clearly demonstrate CEDA’s own assertions to the extent that the alleged conduct has already occurred.

In any event, the conduct in question would be related to the respondent’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression of opinion and fair comment on the affairs of an entity whose operations are entirely publicly funded”, the documents explain. They argue that the balance of convenience, as such, does not favor the granting of an interdict in favor of the company, as such an order would unduly deprive Tshwanelang of its right to freedom of expression and would give CEDA a misused opportunity to prevent public scrutiny and criticism.