GUC defends franchise LLB programme
Johannes Kambai | Monday April 20, 2026 14:58
GUC has convened a press conference to reassure stakeholders following the High Court judgment delivered on April 15, 2026, dismissing the admission petition of one of its Leeds Beckett University LLB graduates. The ruling has triggered intense public debate about the future of hundreds of self-sponsored and government-supported students who completed the franchised programme and passed the bar examinations.
Dr Chiparo Upenyu, Director of Academics at GUC, outlined the programme’s credentials and insisted the qualification remains fully compliant with national standards.
“GUC’s franchising agreement with Leeds Beckett University commenced with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in 2018. In 2019, GUC formally wrote to the Law Society of Botswana seeking confirmation regarding the eligibility of such graduates to practice law in Botswana. The Law Society confirmed, in a letter dated August 13, 2019, that such graduates are eligible to practice in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners’ Act of 1996,” he said.
He added that Leeds Beckett University was registered by the Botswana Qualifications Authority (BQA) as an awarding body, and that the programme received BQA accreditation in March 2020, with quality assurance visits occurring twice yearly. He said all teaching staff are vetted and trained by Leeds, assessments and moderation are conducted by the UK university, and degrees are conferred directly by Leeds Beckett.
It was revealed that the 2023 cohort’s graduates sat the 2024 Bar Examinations and were admitted without objection. However, four members of the 2024 graduating class who passed the June 2025 Bar Examinations now face opposition from the Law Society, which has questioned whether the qualification was truly awarded by Leeds Beckett or by GUC. In the case of Kagiso Stephens, the court dismissed his petition on procedural grounds. The judgment stated that Mr Stephens “did not file heads of argument addressing the allegations raised by the Law Society” and “submitted only his degree and failed to provide the requisite academic transcripts,” leaving the court unable to verify the origin of the qualification (paragraphs 50 and 51).
Speakers at the public forum expressed deep concern over the broader impact. Advocate Mariah Akistemukit urged respect for the rule of law whilst criticising the publicity given to the judgment, noting that it could still be appealed or reviewed. Several participants highlighted the financial and emotional toll on self-sponsored students and government-sponsored diplomats who left jobs expecting to qualify as lawyers. Questions were raised about apparent inconsistencies with other recognised distance programmes such as UNISA, and calls were made for the government, Attorney General, and BQA to clarify the status of the qualification to prevent future lawsuits against GUC and the Law Society.
GUC representatives stressed that the judgment is limited to an individual matter and does not invalidate the programme. Three other petitions are still pending and will be heard on their merits. The institution confirmed it continues to support its graduates through the admission process and maintains full documentation proving compliance with Leeds Beckett and BQA standards.
Kagiso Stephens, a Leeds Beckett University graduate, described the ruling as procedurally flawed and unfair.
“The judgment is bad, to say the least. The judge went on to deal with the merits, shutting the door on my face without even giving me a chance to deal with the scandalous accusations of the Law Society,” he said. The ongoing uncertainty has left many graduates anxious about their careers, with GUC pledging to continue engaging regulators to protect the rights of its students and the integrity of the franchised qualification.