Response to Mmegi article "Chief Justice hijacks justice"

| Thursday July 24, 2008 00:00

In this context I was initially reluctant to respond to the article entitled 'Chief Justice Hijacks justice', which was published in the 10/7/08 edition of the Mmegi newspaper.

But, given the concern raised by the article, I feel it is now incumbent upon me to set the record straight by refuting its monstrous suggestion to the effect that I tried to change the conviction recorded by a Magistrate's court against a Mr. Sesupo Machaya.

None of this, in my view, would have been necessary if Mmegi's reporter had more fully and accurately reflected my original explanation of what was a modest request on my part to the responsible Magistrate that she simply consider giving Mr. Machaya an opportunity to apply for bail prior to his sentencing.

As I sought to explain to the Mmegi reporter, Mr. Machaya had been convicted on a Wednesday of failing to pay for maintenance, while his sentence had been postponed until the following Friday. In this context, he thus faced the prospect of being detained in prison for two days prior to receiving his actual sentence. In such circumstance, he was entitled to apply for bail.

Bail applications are, in fact, commonly and regularly made to courts in order to avoid the incarceration of individuals before their sentencing.

In such cases it is up to the court hearing such an application to exercise its own discretion in either granting or refusing it. On the day of his conviction Mr. Machaya had, moreover, paid off all of his maintenance arrears.

It is in the above context that the Magistrate ultimately applied her own judgement in agreeing that she would hear Mr. Machaya's bail application on the Wednesday in question, and so it was agreed that he could wait at the Magistrate's court to move his application before being transported to prison in Mochudi.

From the above it should be clear that my own role in Mr. Machaya's case was limited, and I believe reasonable. Certainly, my action should in no way be misconstrued as seeking to hijack the case.

Neither can it be reasonably compared to an incident that recently affected the Constitutional Court in South Africa, as suggested by the article.

I hope that this explanation will alleviate any public misunderstanding about the matter.

Chief Justice
Julian Nganunu
GABORONE