LSB challenges judicial appointment
Mpho Mokwape | Friday November 21, 2025 10:20
The society says it has decided to protect the independence of the judiciary, to defend the integrity of the legal system, and to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in the courts.
According to a recent statement from the Society says following the announcement on November 8, 2025, that former Attorney General, Mmako Abram, has been appointed to the High Court bench, and that the decision to take legal action has become unavoidable because the concerns the Society has raised for many years remain unaddressed.
“The problems surrounding the latest appointment show again that the process for selecting judges is still not open, still not transparent, and still not guided by clear procedures,” said LSB.
The LSB says it will begin by filing an urgent application to ask the court to interdict the implementation of the appointment, which means that the society wants the court to stop the appointment from taking effect so that the judge does not assume office while serious questions remain about how the appointment was made.
The LSB believes that allowing the appointment to go ahead would risk creating a situation in which the judiciary operates outside the limits set by the law. It argues that this could damage the confidence that the public must have in the legal system.
“The need for an urgent interdict is also driven by the fact that the High Court is already at its full statutory complement. The High Court Act sets out the maximum number of judges who may serve on the High Court bench,” states LSB.
The Society says that the recent appointment goes beyond this authorised number, and it believes that this makes the appointment unlawful because it contravenes the clear limits written into the statute.
For this reason, the Society says the implementation of the appointment must be stopped until a court has examined and decided the matter.
In addition to the urgent application, the Law Society said it will also file a substantive review application, and the review will challenge both the legality and the procedural propriety of the appointment.
Through this review, we want the court to look closely at the steps, or lack of steps, that led to the decision. The appointment was made without any advertisement of a vacancy,” said the Society.
LSB further argued that no applications were invited and that no open process took place, and because of that, the Society believes that the process contradicted established constitutional principles and long-standing practice in Botswana.
The Law Society notes that it has adopted and published position papers in 2011 and 2023 calling for transparent, advertised, merit-based procedures for appointing judges.
The papers, according to the Society, were meant to help ensure that judicial appointments are handled in a manner that matches the requirements of a constitutional democracy.
Furthermore, the Society believes that the events surrounding the recent appointment show that these principles were not followed, as it states that the absence of an open process raises serious questions about fairness, transparency, and compliance with the Constitution.
By filing the review, the Law Society wants the court to determine whether the Judicial Service Commission acted within the law.
It also wants the court to consider whether the Commission followed proper procedure and whether the decision can stand in light of the statutory limits on the number of High Court judges.
“We believe that only a court can provide a clear, lawful, and authoritative answer to these questions,” noted LSB.
The Law Society emphasises that its actions are driven by its duty to uphold constitutionalism, judicial independence, and the rule of law, saying that the strength of the judiciary depends on public trust, and public trust depends on clear, lawful, and open processes.
The Society argues that judicial appointments hold great importance in any constitutional democracy because judges play a central role in interpreting the law and protecting rights, and because of that, the Society believes that the appointment process must always meet the highest standards.
The Law Society says the problems it has highlighted are not new, as it has been raising concerns for more than a decade about the absence of a published JSC procedure and the continued use of opaque methods in appointing judicial officers.
“The latest events have only confirmed these long-standing fears. The only way to address the issue properly now is to ask the court to intervene,” said LSB.
The Society states that it remains unwavering in its commitment to supporting the rule of law and that its decision to go to court is meant to protect not only the present situation but also future judicial appointments.
In conclusion, the Society says it would like to ensure that all appointments are conducted openly, lawfully, and with full respect for constitutional standards and hopes that by taking these steps, the issues that have troubled the appointment process for so many years will finally be resolved in a clear and lawful way.