Dibotelo, JSC triumph over judges
Lebogang Mosikare | Thursday October 5, 2017 19:30
The August 2015 petition originally signed by 12 judges allegedly accused Dibotelo of tribalism and harming judges’ careers, amongst other remarks. Four other High Court judges, Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Mercy Garekwe and Ranier Busang were suspended from September 2015 to March 2017 for the same petition, with President Ian Khama ultimately lifting the suspension after they apologised to him and Dibotelo.
Recently, Justices Tshepho Motswagole, Lot Moroka, Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe and Godfrey Nthomiwa, went to court asking for the review and setting aside of a Judicial Service Commission (JSC)’s.
(JSC) decision to open and continue an investigation against them over the petition.
The judges had cited the JSC, Dibotelo in his capacity as the chairperson of the JSC and the Attorney General (AG) respectively as respondents in the matter. Passing ruling on the matter on Wednesday, Justice Phadi Solomon said the judges’ contention that the first and second respondents wanted to carry out an investigation against them was “just perception”.
Solomon said the letter that the applicants thought was inviting them for an investigation was only informing them that they had purportedly undermined the office of the CJ and as such their matter was going to be referred to the President for his consideration.
“Nothing in the relevant annexure talks about an investigation. It only talks about referring the matter to his Excellency, President Ian Khama for his consideration in terms of the Constitution. The respondents did not violate the principle of audi alteram partem. In fact they tried to comply with it and did not infringe on the rights of the applicants,” said Solomon.
Audi alteram partem principle is a Latin phrase meaning that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given an opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.
Solomon also said the applicants did not avail any minutes of the JSC meetings they claimed the CJ had chaired. She added that in the absence of those minutes, what the applicants said was just mere speculation.
She further stated that since none of the applicants responded to the JSC letter inviting them to show cause why they allegedly undermined the authority of the CJ, the applicants’ action may be interpreted as having sat on their rights and only harbouring feelings of apprehension.
“I have observed that the applicants harboured feelings of apprehension that they may be removed from their jobs following a hearing. The first and second respondents only wanted to let them know that they were going to refer the matter to the President for his consideration…The applicants have not substantially motivated their case. Their matter is therefore dismissed with costs,” said Solomon.
She added that according to the Constitution, only the President can determine what should be done with the judges and not the JSC.
After the ruling, the applicants’ attorney Wada Nfila told journalists that he was going to consult his clients and take instructions on whether they will appeal the ruling or not.