Makhadzi allowed to leave Botswana and return to South Africa after court agreement

· Citizen

A Botswana court has given Makhadzi, real name Ndivhudzannyi Ralivhona, permission to leave Botswana and return to South Africa. This is after both parties in the related contractual dispute reached an agreement on Wednesday, 4 November.

Visit betsport24.es for more information.

Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Clayson Monyela confirmed the development on X.

“Update: The matter was in court today. Makhadzi has been given permission to leave Botswana and return home to [South Africa]. The contractual dispute has been resolved with both parties reaching an agreement,” he wrote.

The update follows earlier Dirco statements that it was attending to the matter. At the time, the government entity confirmed that the singer and her team were safe after visiting the South African High Commission in Gaborone.

Emotional moment in court

Botswana media outlet Mmegi Online reported that Makhadzi broke down in tears after her court appearance.

In a separate video, the singer said she was happy and relieved to be heading home. She added that Botswana will always hold a special place in her heart. She also said she plans to postpone her album release to the end of November, while continuing to promote her One Woman Show.

What led to the dispute

The matter stems from a contractual and financial disagreement with Botswana promoter Gilbert Seagile of Gilbert Promotions. Reports link it to an alleged breach involving a planned One Woman Show.

Seagile reportedly obtained an urgent High Court order that led to the surrender of Makhadzi’s passport, her vehicle and belongings. The singer said she felt like she had been “kidnapped” and harassed by men who were not clearly identified as law enforcement, per her account. Those men took her documents during or after a performance around 31 October. She has been unable to leave Botswana since then.

Seagile and Gilbert Promotions rejected the “kidnapping” characterisation, saying the action was the enforcement of a legitimate court order over an alleged breach of contract. They also said earlier attempts at an informal settlement had failed. They are now reviewing defamation options over the singer’s online claims.

The exact terms of the settlement have not been made public.

Read full story at source