Morupisi in final close-down
Mpho Mokwape | Monday February 17, 2025 12:09
In the face of pressure and uncertainty, the former Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) remained composed during court proceedings as his case came to a final closure before he could know his fate regarding his pending jail imprisonment. Clad on a light blue suit, Morupisi was this time with his wife, Pinie Morupisi, who for a while has been missing in action during proceedings. They both appeared at ease.
Throughout the marathon case, Morupisi has enjoyed family support as his family members were always in attendance in the many court appearances, something he might have drawn strength and tenacity from. The unperturbed Morupisi, who is convicted of corruption and money laundering, took the front row seat in an ever packed courtroom to hear his attorney, Dr Obonye Jonas, try his all to make sure that he does not return to jail as advocated for by the Attorney General and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. The final close down in an appeal brought by the State on an expedited basis seeks to overturn a January 3, 2025 judgment by the High Court which ultimately released Morupisi from prison. He had previously spent a month in jail having been sent there by the Court of Appeal on December 6, 2024 after his sentence was varied from non custodial to a seven-year sentence. Morupisi has mounted a fierce fight throughout his case as before the hearing of his appeal on Tuesday this week, he had thrown in two applications trying to stay the proceedings and also sought the recusal of two judges. In the stay proceedings application, Morupisi had wanted to challenge the empanelling of the judges by the CoA president, Justice Tebogo Tau, as he argued that she was part of the bench that sent him to jail in the first place. He felt that Justice Tau was conflicted and on recusal application, he had wanted Justices Isaac Lesetedi and Leatile Dambe to recuse themselves from the five benches empanelled to hear the appeal.
Despite his attempts, both applications were dismissed forcing him to defend the appeal. In his defence against the State’s appeal, Morupisi argued that he had every right to challenge the CoA decision because statements made during that time infringed on his rights. Though the bench of Justices Lesetedi, Dambe, Edwin Cameron, Johan Froneman and Goemekgabo Tebogo-Maruping were not impressed with the language Jonas used in the argument papers, but he had apologised saying that statements were made amid emotions and frustrations. He had argued that his client was entitled to challenge the decision at the High Court because the apex court was the one which made statements that were being challenged. “The High Court was the right court because it was a constitutional challenge and the CoA was the one under scrutiny so there was no way to bring it back here,” he said. Jonas argued that his (Morupisi) rights to a fair trial were compromised and that the Justices of the CoA were captured or that there was an undue influence of the government in the judiciary. Jonas explained at length that the judges are insulated from the pressures and undue influence of elected officials and that they also have a duty not to mortgage the courts to politicians as happened in his client’s case. “In making references to the State President, the Court of Appeal allowed itself to be influenced by the government in sentencing the respondent. This is impermissible; it is totally unacceptable. Judges must base their decisions on law and not politics,” he said.
He also argued that judges must decide matters before them on the basis of facts, evidence and law without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or inteferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. Jonas contended that there was no place for pleasing politicians in legal argumentation or adjudication maintaining that the controversial statement contaminated the entire judgment. He cited many case studies to back up his arguments. He argued that statements said by Justice Lakhvinder Singh Walia which are correct at law, do not compensate for the grave and fundamental misdirection that he committed, which completely nullifies his sentencing discretion. “There is also no doubt that the controversial statement referencing the statement contributed to the enhancement of the sentence without any reasonable grounds,” he said. Meanwhile, though the close down might have been a tense moment for Morupisi as he fights to stay out of jail, it was charatericised by calm exchange between the attorneys and the Justices of the CoA and after long arguments that spilled into the afternoon. The court reserved judgment to Friday 21, 2025.