The GUC-LSB battle: How it all began
Spira Tlhankane | Monday September 14, 2026 08:26
Twenty-one Gaborone Universal College of Law and Professional Studies (GUC) graduates, led by Arnold Rapula Somolekae, have refused to accept the High Court’s September 1 dismissal of their challenge against the Law Society of Botswana (LSB). In doing so, they have transformed what was initially a fight over their admission to the June 2026 Bar Examinations into a much bigger legal contest over the limits of regulatory power and procedural fairness. Also, the contest is about the evidential value of a Botswana Qualifications Authority (BQA) audit and, ultimately, who decides whether a law degree is good enough to open the door for one to do legal practice.
The genesis of the caseThe roots of the controversy can be traced back to 2018 when GUC entered into a franchising arrangement with Leeds Beckett University from the United Kingdom (UK), to deliver the university’s Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree programme in Botswana. At the time, the arrangement appeared to offer students a pathway to obtaining an internationally recognised law qualification while studying locally. According to GUC, the programme was not some clandestine arrangement that suddenly appeared before regulators. The College has maintained that the programme was subjected to regulatory scrutiny during its inception.
GUC said it approached the LSB in 2019 to establish whether graduates holding Leeds Beckett University law degrees obtained through the partnership would be eligible to practise law in Botswana. Officials of the College say the LSB responded positively in a letter dated August 13, 2019, confirming that Leeds Beckett graduates would be eligible to practise law under the Legal Practitioners Act. The programme subsequently received BQA accreditation in March 2020, with Leeds Beckett University recognised as the awarding body and GUC serving as the local delivery institution. GUC has repeatedly insisted that Leeds Beckett retained control over important academic functions, including curriculum, examinations, moderation and the awarding of degrees. For years, therefore, the arrangement appeared to have a relatively settled regulatory footing.
The Stephens caseThe first major legal tremor came about when one GUC graduate, Kagiso Stephens, approached the High Court seeking admission as an attorney. Stephens had obtained a Leeds Beckett LLB and passed the Law Society’s professional admission examinations. But the LSB opposed his admission, questioning whether he had obtained a recognised law qualification in the manner required by the Legal Practitioners Act. On April 15, 2026, the High Court dismissed Stephens’ application, but that judgment did not definitively declare the Leeds Beckett-GUC programme unlawful. Rather, the case turned on what evidence Stephens had placed before the court and his failure to adequately answer the allegations raised against him. That distinction became important because GUC subsequently moved to reassure students and alumni that the judgment had not invalidated the franchise programme.
The College pointed to the BQA accreditation, the role of Leeds Beckett in examinations and moderation, and the fact that an earlier cohort had already written the Bar examinations and admitted into practice law. Indeed, the 2023 graduating cohort had sat the 2024 Bar examinations and were admitted without objection from the LSB. That history would later become a central part of the graduates’ argument that if an earlier cohort from the same programme had been allowed through the regulatory gate, why the 21 graduates were being denied the same benefit.
The dispute escalated dramatically in May 2026 when the 21 graduates, who completed the Leeds Beckett LLB programme delivered through GUC, sought registration for the June 2026 Bar Examinations. On May 29, the LSB rejected their applications saying that after considering the documentation submitted, including the graduates’ degree certificates and transcripts, it was not satisfied that they had obtained, by examination conducted by the issuing university, a qualifying law degree from a prescribed university.
That decision was devastating for the graduates as the Bar examinations represented the next step towards pupillage, admission and entry into the legal profession. The graduates warned that exclusion from the June examinations could delay their professional progression by about 12 months or more. The graduates went to court and argued that the LSB had gone beyond its statutory mandate and effectively created an additional eligibility requirement that was not contained in the Legal Practitioners Act or the applicable regulations.
The LSB viewed the matter differently and its position was that it was not simply a body that stamped certificates and registered whoever appeared before it. The Society argued that it had a statutory responsibility to regulate the profession and ensure that those seeking entry met the requirements of the law. It also argued that accepting the graduates’ interpretation of its powers would reduce it to “a registry office devoid of any evaluative function”. The graduates’ urgent application at the High Court was built around Section 4(1) (b) (ii) of the Legal Practitioners Act and regulation 2(a) of the Legal Practitioners (Examinations and Qualifications for Admission) Regulations. The graduates argued that the LSB had misapplied those provisions and had effectively treated their degrees as though they were not Leeds Beckett qualifications simply because the teaching had been delivered through GUC.
They also argued that the Society had acted irrationally, inconsistently and unfairly and one of their strongest arguments was based on the history of the programme. The applicants pointed to the earlier regulatory correspondence, BQA accreditation and the fact that graduates from the same programme had previously been permitted to write the Bar examinations and had been admitted.
Equally, the graduates argued that the LSB could not suddenly change its position without properly explaining its decision. They also said that, if the Society genuinely had concerns about how the degrees were awarded or how examinations were conducted, it should have sought clarification before shutting the graduates out. The LSB, however, maintained that its concern was not simply where students attended classes but was whether the statutory requirements for entry into the legal profession had actually been met.
The BQA audit The BQA audit became a major evidential issue in the High Court proceedings. Justice Godfrey Nthomiwa ultimately found that the dispute concerning the existence and contents of the BQA statutory audit report could not be resolved on affidavit evidence. The judge consequently found that the review of the LSB’s May 29 decision could not be resolved on the papers before him. The review application was dismissed and the graduates were ordered to pay costs. In the appeal papers, the graduates say the court erred in finding that a material dispute existed concerning the BQA audit report.
They argue that the audit report was not relevant to determining whether the LSB’s May 29 decision was reasonable, rational or lawfully made. Their case is that the LSB should stand or fall on the reasons it actually gave the graduates when it rejected their applications not on reasons or evidence developed later during litigation. “The audit report was irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the decision communicated to the Appellants on 29 May 2026 was reasonable, rational and/or legally made,” the graduates argued.
The appeal papers put it bluntly that the High Court should not have dismissed the entire judicial review merely because it believed some factual issue required further determination. More importantly, they want the CoA to substitute those orders with declarations that the LSB’s May 29 decisions refusing their applications to register for the June 2026 Bar Examinations were “unlawful, irrational, unreasonable and procedurally unfair.”
The appeal papers filed in the CoA attack Justice Nthomiwa’s judgment on several fronts. The graduates say the High Court effectively stopped their review application without determining the substantive complaints they had brought against the LSB.
More significantly, they argue that the court allowed the BQA audit issue to overshadow the actual legality of the LSB’s May 29, 2026 decision. With the CoA move, the GUC-LSB battle that started with a university partnership has entered its most consequential chapter yet.