Businesswoman Bridgette Motsepe-Radebe is moving to claim an amount of 68-million pula (about R83-million) in legal costs, she says is owed by the government of Botswana, following her exoneration in a high-profile legal saga known as the “Butterfly Case”.
The elder sister of Patrice Motsepe, the billionaire mining magnate and CAF president, was falsely implicated in 2019 in an alleged $10-billion money-laundering conspiracy linked to former Botswana president Ian Khama.
The allegations, which circulated internationally, were later found to be baseless.
The allegations first came to light in an affidavit by Jako Hubona, an investigator with Botswana’s Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime.
Motsepe-Radebe was accused by the administration of former president Mokgweetsi Masisi of being part of a network involving offshore and South African bank accounts purportedly used to move vast sums of funds belonging to the Botswana government, with suggestions that the funds were tied to efforts to destabilise the government and finance opposition political activity. She was accused in the affidavit of co-signing $10-billion (about R150-billion) for this alleged coup against the then Botswana government.
Responding on behalf of Motsepe-Radebe, law firm Webber Wentzel accused the government of Botswana of being in contempt of the court order issued by the High Court in Lobatse, saying there has been no “substantive explanation” provided for failure to comply with the payment obligations.
“It has been a very costly episode for her, financially and emotionally. The (government) is in contempt, and (Motsepe-Radebe) will be taking legal advice on the next steps.”
“No effort has been made by the government to contact the (her) to discuss her costs and expenses, let alone make payment. Meanwhile, interest continues to accrue.”
The firm also lamented how long it had taken to run adverts expressing an apology and a retraction in South African print and broadcast media when the court had ordered these be done within seven days of the order granted on June 27 last year.
“The delay is inexcusable, as it does not take six months to book and arrange placements in the media. Critically, the required publications in The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and CNN have not taken place.”
Last year, the Botswana High Court ruled that the allegations were “unlawful, false, and reckless”. In a consent order issued in June 2025, the court recorded that Motsepe had abandoned her claim for personal damages but that the state remained liable for her reasonable legal costs.
“The respondent (Botswana government) is directed to pay the applicant’s costs on a party-and-party scale, including the costs of two counsel,” the order stated, adding that the government must also cover expenses “reasonably incurred in the vindication of her good name”.
However, the financially strapped government of the neighbouring state is yet to adhere to the findings of the court order.
A source close to Motsepe-Radebe told Sunday World this week that: “Since the court order was handed down, there has been no follow-up beyond discussions around apologies. Bridgette has been largely in the dark but has already established how much she is owed.”
In response to the allegations, Motsepe-Radebe instructed Omnia Strategy, a London-based international law and strategic advisory firm led by British barrister Cherie Blair – wife of former prime minister Tony Blair – to investigate the matter.
Omnia specialises in complex cross-border disputes, state accountability, and high-risk reputational litigation involving governments and multinational actors.
Drawing on legal analysis and investigative findings, the two firms jointly produced the Flies & Lies report in 2020, which concluded that the allegations against Motsepe were unfounded and characterised them as a “clumsy hoax”.
Her legal team also included senior counsel Dario Milo and Kuhle Mavuso of Webber Wentzel in Johannesburg, as well as Unoda Mack of Mack Bahuma Attorneys in Gaborone, supported by several specialist advisers.
Botswana state attorney Osego Garebamono confirmed to Sunday World that discussions between the parties’ legal representatives were held on January 29, focusing on legal fees and related costs.
“We remain hopeful that an agreement on legal costs and ancillary expenses will be reached in due course,” Garebamono said, declining to disclose the amount under discussion.
In its response, the government conceded that it was legally obliged to foot Motsepe’s legal bill and fulfil other set conditions but said compliance has so far been only “partial”, citing “logistical and advertising constraints”.
Garebamono said the next phase of compliance involves the publication of formal apologies in the Sunday Times newspaper and on the South African Broadcasting Corporation, with other placements in the Financial Times, CNN and the Wall Street Journal still outstanding.
“The legal representatives of both parties have been actively engaging to ensure full compliance. The apology advertisements have been booked for publication in February 2026. We continue to work together to address remaining compliance issues,” he said.
However, securing payment of the 68-million pula legal bill may prove more difficult. Botswana’s treasury is under severe strain due to a prolonged downturn in the global diamond market, with GDP projected to contract by 0.9%.
A massive oversupply, with diamond stockpiles and an increase in lab grown diamonds, has led to a 78% drop in exports.
Also speaking to Sunday World, Botswana Attorney-General Dick Bayford cautioned that the figure being cited publicly has not yet been legally established.
According to him, the High Court order did not fix a specific amount but limits the state’s liability to costs that were “reasonably incurred” by Motsepe in vindicating her name.
He added that the quantum of those costs has not yet been agreed upon or determined.
“That process is still underway. The parties are currently engaging to establish what would be reasonable in the circumstances. If there is no agreement, the court will have to decide the amount.”
“At this stage, there is no court-determined or agreed amount.”
