GUC law graduates in limbo
Spira Tlhankane | Monday September 7, 2026 09:19
The graduates, who completed an LLB programme offered through Gaborone University College of Law and Professional Studies (GUC) in collaboration with the United Kingdom’s Leeds Beckett University, had hoped to sit for the June 2026 Bar Examinations. Instead, they found themselves locked out of the examination room after the LSB refused to register them. The High Court has now revealed that lurking behind the dispute is a BQA audit which allegedly raised concerns about the delivery and quality assurance of the programme. But in a dramatic twist, the court stopped short of deciding whether the LSB was justified in excluding the graduates. Delivering a ruling on Tuesday, Justice Godfrey Nthomiwa found that the competing versions raised genuine and material factual disputes which could not be resolved on affidavit therefore resulting in a stalemate. That single finding lies at the heart of a ruling that could have wider implications for legal education and admission into Botswana’s legal profession.
The dispute centres on an audit conducted by BQA into the GUC/Leeds Beckett Bachelor of Laws programme. According to Nthomiwa’s judgment, the LSB had been trying to obtain the audit report from BQA after concerns about the programme surfaced. The Society said it was eventually given a letter about the report rather than the report itself. In correspondence to BQA dated June 9, 2026, the LSB expressed its frustration in unusually blunt terms. “The Society has therefore all along waited on BQA to share the report of the audit and is now perplexed that what has been shared with it is now a report about a report and not the report itself, and no information advanced as to the reasons for not sharing the actual report,” said the body that preserves and maintains the integrity of the legal profession.
The Society also complained that it had been excluded from the quality assurance process despite its regulatory role in the legal profession. “We are therefore of the opinion that your receipt of the audit report, submission to the institution for corrective action and allowing the Institution to submit its corrective plan, and your assessment of the said corrective action plan without the knowledge, input or participation of the Law Society offend the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding and undermines its objectives therein.” The LSB wanted the original audit report placed before court because the BQA’s letter of June 2, 2026, appears to have given the Society ammunition for its concerns. The Authority stated: “The audit raised a number of findings that affect the delivery of the programme and require timely corrective action to ensure continued compliance with the applicable quality assurance standards.” BQA identified what it called a critical finding concerning endorsement of the learning programme. “A critical finding of the audit pertains to the endorsement of the learning programme.” It further explained that endorsement by the relevant professional body was a core requirement for accreditation and renewal of professional qualifications.
However, the Authority also confirmed that GUC had submitted a Corrective Action Plan. “The Authority has approved the plan, and the institution is currently implementing the required corrective measures.” That development has become central to the legal battle because the graduates maintain that the LSB's refusal was unlawful and that they were never properly confronted with the alleged adverse findings before being denied registration. The graduates, meanwhile, relied heavily on confirmation from Leeds Beckett University that their qualifications were genuine. The university confirmed that the students attended classes at GUC, which was its franchise partner in Botswana, while lectures, seminars and workshop materials were created by Leeds Beckett academics.
Assessment questions were also drafted by Leeds Beckett academics and student work moderated by them. In a letter concerning the first applicant, the Dean of Leeds Law School delivered an unequivocal conclusion: “You are a graduate of Leeds Beckett University.” The graduates therefore argued that they had obtained degrees from a recognised institution and should at least be allowed to sit for the examinations designed to test their competence in Botswana law. They said they were not asking for preferential treatment and their position, as recorded in the judgment, was that they simply wanted to write the same examinations as everyone else and be assessed on their performance. The LSB rejected the suggestion that its role was merely to check whether the name printed on a degree certificate belonged to a university appearing on the statutory list of recognised institutions. It argued that Parliament had entrusted it with protecting professional standards and the public interest.
The Society warned that the applicants’ interpretation of its role would reduce it to, “a registry office devoid of any evaluative function.” It maintained that BQA and the LSB have different but complementary responsibilities. BQA, the Society argued, is concerned with accreditation and quality assurance in tertiary education, while the LSB must determine whether candidates meet the statutory requirements for entry into the legal profession. The court ultimately found that the dispute could not be resolved simply by choosing one side’s version of events. The LSB had raised material allegations concerning the BQA audit, the quality and structure of the programme, academic supervision, assessment methodologies, and accreditation and whether the programme was fit for professional purposes.
The graduates denied knowledge of the alleged adverse findings and maintained that the relevant reports had never been disclosed to them. The judge found that both sides had produced competing evidence. “The Respondents raised material allegations against averments made by the Applicants and produced positive evidence to the contrary. The Applicants in turn denied knowledge of those material allegations,” Justice Nthomiwa said. The court held that genuine factual disputes existed and could not properly be resolved through affidavits.
The ruling makes clear that the case is not merely a fight between 21 graduates and the LSB. Justice Nthomiwa said the dispute has implications for the students, their institution, the country and the legal profession. “The decision has a far-reaching impact on the students, the institution, the country and the law profession. This court has to eventually decide on the impact the decision would have on the students and the standard of the law profession in this country,” the judge added. For the graduates, the consequences are potentially severe as they argued that being excluded from the examination cycle could mean a lost year of professional progression, delayed employment, delayed pupillage and delayed admission into the profession. But the court found that the matter could not be finally determined on the papers before it.
The application challenging the LSB’s refusal was therefore dismissed under the High Court Rules, with the applicants ordered to pay costs. The court did, however, find the matter “marginally urgent” but for the 21 graduates, their degrees may say they have graduated but until the regulatory dispute is properly resolved, the courtroom battle over whether they can take the next step into Botswana’s legal profession is far from over.