Judiciary under siege
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday February 13, 2023 06:00
But the duo are resolute that despite the public and Law Society of Botswana’s outcry, the situation is under control. Chief Justice decries judicial attacks Rannowane said the Judiciary has in the last few years seen an unprecedented increase in attacks on its officers.
The attacks, he said have happened in the glare of the public and some through coordinated social media platforms. “The social media attacks have been the worst kind because they have been perpetrated by individuals using pseudo accounts and who are beyond the reach of the law. In some instances, some individuals often claim to know the outcome of judgments even before they are read out.
These unwarranted attacks under the false guise of whistleblowing have targeted Judges of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. These attacks undermine and compromise the rule of law and the country’s standing internationally and must in any democracy be frowned upon,” he said.
Rannowane advised that the country is not to worry as the legal system would deal with them accordingly.
“While these on-going matters may cause some concern, they must be viewed in the context of our robust legal system and processes, which guarantee each one of us, the right of recourse and access to our courts, their station in life notwithstanding.
They also attest to the fact that as a mature and well-established democracy, citizens are conscious of their rights and the fact that in Botswana, anybody can sue or be sued, regardless of his or her public standing.
I would like in this regard to reassure the nation that these cases will be dealt with fairly and objectively as the law requires,” Rannowane said. He said he is a firm believer in constructive dialogue as juxtaposed to destructive confrontation. “In this context, I wish to note with satisfaction that on Friday the 3rd February 2023, we had a meet and greet engagement with the newly appointed council of the Law Society of Botswana.
We cordially discussed some issues of concern to both parties and undertook going forward, to talk with each other internally before going public whenever we have differences. On my part as head of the Judiciary, I assure all stakeholders that my door will always be open. Don’t hesitate to engage with me whenever the need arises,” he said. Judiciary going through a storm - Attorney General
Chief Government attorney, Keetshabe, said the storm that hit the Judiciary is temporary. “The least that should be said is that the Judiciary is going through a storm. Naturally, there is turbulence. It is true to say that a door opens so that it can close; darkness comes so that light can come; the sun sets so that it can rise. It logically follows that this turbulence is the passage-way to stability.
The point is that after every storm it is time for calmness,” he said. Keetshabe said it is always true to say that we are all equal before the law and that Judicial officers are no exception. “They are citizens with rights and obligations that other citizens have. In the true context of Botswana, judicial officers are entitled to ventilate their grievances before the same courts.
I am sure I am right that the judicial system of Botswana has sufficiently matured and stood the test of time, and that it is so well established that it will deal with grievances of judicial officers as effectively as in the past. I am the first to admit as the Attorney General that the established legal maxim here is the burden of proof falls to the plaintiff or claimant. But that is not the direction I am going.
The point is that in Botswana, the sub judice rule exists and is enforceable. In terms of the Constitution of Botswana, the courts are independent and we should leave these matters to the courts to deal with,” he said. Keetshabe said recognising that these matters are sub judice and therefore nobody is at liberty to publicly comment on their merits, he said while judicial officers, at all levels, have the right to assert themselves before Courts of Law, “the influx of cases against the Administration of Justice has the potential to erode public confidence in the Judiciary.
Personally, I would have preferred exploring alternative ways of dealing with the concerns rather than through litigation.” Keetshabe said while everyone with legal standing is at liberty to file a case in any of the four (4) divisions of the High Court across the country, there is no doubt in his mind that some litigants and their attorneys are now abusing this freedom.
“There is an emerging trend where some litigants and their attorneys file their matters as far as the Maun division of the High Court despite all parties to the dispute and their attorneys being based in the southern part of the country. This is cause for grave concern as it not only makes litigation unnecessarily expensive but also has the potential to enable “forum shopping” to take root in our justice system. I hold the view that this regrettable trend should be brought to a complete cul-de-sac through stringent regulation,” he said.
LSB is deeply concerned - Garebamono
For his part, chairperson of the Law Society of Botswana (LSB), Osego Garebamono said the Society and indeed Batswana in general are deeply concerned about the deteriorating state of the Judiciary. He said the recent complaint and allegations made by a judge (Justice Gaopalelwe Ketlogetswe) to the effect that the Chief Justice and a Minister in the office of the Presidency (Kabo Morwaeng) sought to influence his decisions in a particular case which he was seized with are worrisome, to put it mildly.
“What is also worrisome to us is how the complaint was handled by the Office of the President and the Judicial Service Commission, as, in our view, it was not accorded the attention it deserved within the shortest period of time. In terms of our Constitution the Presidency and the Judicial Service Commission bear a responsibility to protect the Judiciary and we believe that delays in providing this protection are damaging to the reputation of the institution.
The allegations that confront the Judiciary cannot be ignored because they speak to the core of our belief that the Judiciary should not only be free from influence but also be seen to be free from such influence,” Garebamono said.
As part of efforts to limit damage to the institution, Garebamono said the Society reached out to various stakeholders last year including the Office of the President and the Attorney General. He, however, said their outreach came to naught. Despite this, he said they will never tire in their efforts to protect the Judiciary. He vowed to the public at large that the Law Society we will not turn a blind eye to any threat to judicial independence. Garebamono said the perception amongst their members is that even within the Judiciary itself, the centre is not holding.
“We have seen judges and those appointed within the Administration of Justice such as Registrars and Magistrates resorting to litigation to air their grievances. Judicial independence requires amongst others, clear procedures and conditions governing promotions, transfers and disciplinary processes. Without clear conditions, for instance, promotions may be used to reward unmerited behaviour, transfers may be used to punish those who refuse to toe the line and suspensions used to silence robust internal debate. We believe that a fair and objective administration of justice will create a competent and confident cadre of civil servants who will take pride in serving the public.
On those premises, it is our position as the Society that the current situation cannot be ignored and demonstrates the need for more accountability and oversight because it is what the public deserves,” he said. Garebamono said the process of appointment of Judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court as well as Magistrates Courts of lacks transparency more so at the Apex Court where one expects the highest credibility and skill. “Judges of the Industrial Court should also be appointed in a similar fashion as that provided for in the Constitution.
Questionable appointments will more likely than not compromise the quality of the justice dispensed and lower the standard of the Courts and our jurisprudence. Reform of this process cannot be delayed any further.
The standing of this institution is at stake. And whilst we are a proponent of localisation, the Society has stated previously that even localisation should not be at the expense of merit. Meritorious appointments lend credence to the judiciary and help uphold its upright character,” he said.