Presidential succession in Botswana: No model for Africa. But a combination of a judiciary independent from the state, indefatigable lawyers and of course some administrative slip-ups have all put paid to the state’s effort to deport the professor - at least for now.
Late Saturday afternoon an extra-ordinary sitting of the High Court in Justice Moatlhodi Marumo’s chambers granted a stay of execution of Good’s deportation order, pending the full determination of the objections filed by his lawyers Dick Bayford, Duma Boko and Joao Salbany.
Marumo ordered that the lawyers had established a prima facie case for a stay of execution to be granted. The judge ordered that Good would appear in court on March 7 to submit his arguments against the deportation. The professor is allowed to stay in the country on the same conditions that are on his resident permit after Boko requested the court to make an order to ensure that the professor is not harassed by the state.
Conspicuously absent at the hearing were officials from the Attorney General’s Chambers. Good’s lawyers told the court that they were unable to serve the officers since their offices were closed. Bayford said their client was served with deportation papers around 5pm on Friday. They were instructed to work on the case after 6pm on the same day, but since all the offices were closed, they could not serve the Attorney General with papers of their court application. The court noted this and went on to give an order without the participation of the Attorney General.
When Bayford stood to make his submissions, he did not speak for long. He just confined himself to what he called the confusion and ambiguity in the deportation order. His argument was that there are only two officials in the land who are entitled by law to declare one a prohibited immigrant. These are the President and an immigration official.
In the case of Good, the order was made by an immigration official, a certain Jorowe. Bayford said the order under Section 11 (1) as read with Section 4 has to be preceded by an examination of the affected person by an immigration officer. There is a duty imposed on the immigration officer to state the grounds upon which the order or notice is made. But in the case of Good the officer did not state the reasons. Instead he wrote that: “You have been declared a prohibited immigrant under a presidential decree”. Bayford submitted that this ground does not denote an exercise of independent discretion on the part of the immigration officer. “To this extent, it is incompetent.”
Marumo asked whether the order was accompanied by another order from the President and Bayford answered in the negative.
The court was told that Good was issued with another order directing him to leave the country on February 20. Bayford said this was another blunder by the state as the order was issued in a form normally filled by non-residents entering Botswana or on transit.
“I am wondering what the relevance of this document was,” Marumo said before he granted Good a stay of execution he sought..
Meanwhile, Good might be in court earlier than March 7. Monitor has been informed that the Attorney General is likely to give Good’s attorneys a 48 hour notice to proceed with the matter at the earliest opportunity.
It remains to be seen whether Good’s Wednesday seminar at which he is to deliver a scathing paper on presidential succession in Botswana will see the light of the day.
