Prominent businessman Bakang Seretse has called for the removal of two senior judges from a Court of Appeal case involving more than P50 million in disputed interest.
On August 18, 2026, Seretse, alongside Khulaco Proprietary Limited and M&B Properties, filed an urgent application requesting that Court of Appeal Judge President Tebogo Tau and Justice of Appeal Isaac Lesetedi recuse themselves from hearing the pending appeal.
The applicants contend that Tau and Lesetedi should be disqualified due to findings they made in a separate case involving Seretse and Khulaco, which could undermine their impartiality in the current matter.
This move follows a July 31, 2026 ruling by a three-member Court of Appeal panel that included Tau, Lesetedi, and South African jurist Edwin Cameron. That panel ordered Seretse and Khulaco to repay P42 million to the government related to a separate dispute.
Justice Cameron authored the judgment, which was fully endorsed by Tau and Lesetedi. The court’s ruling contained sharply critical language about Seretse’s role in the transaction, suggesting he had “a sticky finger in the deal.” It also described the transaction as a “monstrous heist” allegedly orchestrated at taxpayers’ expense and noted a “whiff of fraud” surrounding the case.
Seretse’s legal team, Plaatjie Taupedi Attorneys, now argues that these remarks raise serious doubts about whether Tau and Lesetedi can impartially consider the pending appeal, which centers on interest exceeding P50 million earned on funds that had been frozen under the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act (PICA) before being released to Seretse’s companies.
The principal funds include P69,734,260 belonging to Khulaco and P11,081,016 belonging to M&B Properties. These amounts were returned after the state’s civil forfeiture case collapsed in 2021, with a subsequent appeal dismissed in 2022.
In April 2025, High Court Judge Michael Leburu ruled that the interest accrued on these funds rightfully belonged to the applicants, ordering the government to pay. The Attorney General challenged that ruling, escalating the case to the Court of Appeal.
Seretse now asserts that the participation of Tau and Lesetedi in the July 31 judgment creates a reasonable perception that they may have pre-judged the transaction at the heart of the interest dispute.
In his founding affidavit, Seretse argues that a “fair-minded and informed observer” would see a real risk of bias. He points out the contradiction between the earlier Court of Appeal proceedings, which accepted the contractual legitimacy of the P42 million payment, and the July ruling’s harsh characterizations of the same transaction.
“It is difficult, objectively, for a litigant to approach the substantive hearing with confidence before judges who have already formally subscribed to findings that characterize him as having ‘many sticky fingers’ in the transaction,” Seretse states.
The recusal request has also stalled enforcement of the P42 million judgment. The court will now decide whether Tau and Lesetedi will continue to sit on the panel hearing the dispute over the interest.
The decision could have significant implications for the ongoing legal battle over millions of pula in contested funds.