State persuades court to refuse Morupisi withdrawal
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday July 10, 2024 10:37
The State through DPP states the former Permanent Secretary to the President, who is now Botswana Patriotic Front (BPF) chairperson, has been closed out by the same court when the bench ruled that the appeal continue. DPP’s argument comes after Morupisi attempted to withdraw his appeal without having sought leave first from the court. On June 19, 2024, the bench of Court President, Justice Tebogo Tau, Justices Singh Walia and Baaitse Nkabinde struck out Morupisi’s application for withdrawal of appeal for failing to follow court rules. The ruling in part noted that 'the appeal shall proceed on the grounds as filed' and this is where DPP’s argument lies that the court has already decided that the appeal shall proceed.
Standing for the prosecution, Kentse Molome explained that when the court made the finding that the appeal would proceed they ultimately closed the door for Morupisi to make remedial measures. “Morupisi’s application for leave shouldn't stand as the court has already decided on the matter and also that Morupisi was given many chances to remedy the situation must he fail to do so,” she told the court. On the other point, Molome accused Morupisi of abusing the court process because she was quick to accept defeat on the argument after the court cautioned her about making such allegations. Justice Walia, in response to Molome’s accusations, had mentioned to her that accusing someone of abusing the court process is a serious allegation. “Making such allegations is grave, especially when that person believes they are simply exercising their legal right. “Keep in mind that when an application is struck out there are corrective measures that can be applied and it is different from a dismissal, remember that,” Walia said. Both justices, Walia and Nkabinde, had reminded the State that when an application is struck out, it gives the litigant a chance to take remedial measures to ensure compliance with the rules and that was basically what Morupisi was doing.
On the other hand, Morupisi is adamant that he doesn't want to continue with the appeal and that he doesn't want to be forced to do so against his wishes as that put his rights to fair litigation in jeopardy. Earlier on, his attorney Busang Manewe had centred his main argument that his client was running low on cash and unable to continue with the litigation. “My client is a pensioner with a greatly diminished ability to finance legal battles. He has incurred large sums of money in legal fees in the criminal case matter and others associated with it,” Manewe said. Manewe argued that Morupisi’s employment came to an end in 2020 and the case is draining his pockets revealing that he has cumulatively spent over P2 million in the case on payment of the seized vehicle, court fees and legal fees. The attorney said for those reasons his client has decided to cut his losses by withdrawing the appeal, reasons why he has made remedial measures to apply for leave of court to withdraw.
Manewe conceded that he had made a mistake with his client in the way he approached the decision to withdraw the appeal, but hoped that the court would take into account that a litigant cannot be forced to continue when he wishes not to do so. In response, Justice Nkabinde reminded Manewe that the timing for Morupisi to withdraw was off, especially using the argument of lack of funds. “The argument of lack of money doesn't suffice because of the timing. Leave to withdraw isn't for the taking unless there are compiling reasons. Also, remember that the court has processes and rules, it isn't about the litigant doing what she/he wants,” she said. Morupisi is seeking leave to withdraw his appeal. Morupisi, who was convicted by the High Court on charges of corruption and money laundering, was trying to appeal despite being given suspended jail terms and ordered to pay about P130,000. At the time, around November 2022, Morupisi at 63 years was found guilty of two counts of corruption and one count of money laundering and sentenced as stated below.
On count one he was sentenced to two years imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that he didn't commit the same offence while on count two, he was fined P50,000 or five years imprisonment should he default, while on count three, he was fined P80,000 or eight years imprisonment, should he default. He was further given 90 days to pay while the Toyota Land Cruiser, said to be proceeds of crime, was forfeited to the State and that is where his appeal was launched. The ruling is set for July 26.