High Court drivers scale back non essential duties
Mpho Mokwape | Monday October 13, 2025 06:00
Though quiet but significant, the go-slow, which began on Tuesday, is already impacting daily routines within judges’ households, even as official courtroom proceedings remain unaffected.
According to an inside source, drivers have withdrawn from performing tasks outside their formal working hours, including the regular transport of judges’ children to school before 7:30 am and afternoon pick-ups at 1:00 pm and 4:30 pm.
These duties, though long performed without complaint, fall outside the scope of the drivers' formal contracts and have become the core of a growing dispute over unpaid overtime and legal non-compliance.
The source, being one of the drivers who fears victimisation, confirmed that the action is rooted in a 2022 ruling by Justice Bashi Moesi at the Francistown High Court, which unequivocally stated that drivers are entitled to a standby allowance.
The judgment recognised that chauffeurs attached to High Court judges often remain on call well beyond regular hours, ready to report for duty in the early morning, late evening, and even during weekends.
“The court was clear. These drivers are on standby most of the time, including after hours, and that time has value. The allowance is not a favour; it is a legal right,” the source said.
Despite this legal clarity, the AoJ has reportedly struggled or failed outright to implement the order.
According to the drivers, since the ruling was handed down, there has been no consistent effort to compensate drivers in line with the judgment.
The drivers said they have waited, filed internal grievances, and even sought clarification through formal channels, but after two years of silence and stalled promises, they have now opted to act.
“This is not a strike. It is a go-slow assertion of their rights. They are still reporting for duty and performing their core responsibilities. But they are refusing to continue with extra duties that the employer has never acknowledged or compensated,” the source added.
The protest has created confusion across the judiciary, with judges and their immediate families who rely on flexible transport services facing new logistical hurdles.
Some judges have had to make alternative arrangements for their children, while others have taken a more understanding view of the drivers’ frustrations.
One judge, speaking on condition of anonymity on the side at the ongoing Southern and Eastern Chief Justice’s Forum, said the drivers’ reaction is both lawful and understandable.
“If there is a court order affirming a right, and that order is not being respected, then they are within their rights to protest in a lawful and measured way. That said, my own drivers, though clearly aggrieved, have assured me they will continue working with professionalism and diligence. I appreciate that. I also understand their position,” the judge said.
He explained that the drivers’ grievances offer a rare glimpse into the delicate situation and noted that they are supporting their drivers while working within a system that has so far failed to resolve the issue.
The drivers, for their part, have emphasised that their protest is not aimed at the judges themselves, but at the system that continues to ignore a binding legal ruling.
“They’re not being disruptive. They’re not targeting individuals. They are simply saying: We can no longer be expected to do more than our job description without recognition or compensation,” the source explained.
The drivers, in frustration, said the issue raises broader concerns about compliance and internal accountability within the justice system itself, pointing out that if the AoJ, an institution responsible for upholding the rule of law, fails to comply with a court order, it sends a troubling message to the wider public and to other government departments.
“There is a principle at stake here,” the source said. “If those at the top of the justice system can ignore a ruling, what hope is there for an ordinary citizen who wins a case and expects enforcement?”
So far, the only official comment from the AoJ is through the government, which is that the coffers are empty and that it is not about defiance, and it remains unclear whether the matter is actively being addressed behind closed doors, as the drivers said they have not yet been approached
Also, some insiders suggest that budgetary constraints have delayed implementation, while others point to a broader issue of internal disorganisation and miscommunication.
Despite their frustrations, the drivers have continued to conduct their main duties, including transporting judges to court and other official functions. However, their patience appears to be wearing thin.
“There is only so long people will wait. The go-slow is a signal. If nothing changes, more visible forms of protest may follow,” the source warned.
Though the protest remains low-profile for now, its implications are significant; at stake is not just the payment of allowances, but the credibility of a justice system that must now confront whether it will follow its own rulings or allow them to gather dust while those affected are left in limbo.