The CoA pronounced decisively that there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the High Court the powers to sit and review the judgments of the apex court including those dealing with the rights and freedoms of individuals. “The High Court does not have authority over the CoA judgments even those affecting fundamental rights and freedoms,” court was told. In a judgment confirming its initial seven-year imprisonment sentence for Morupisi, the CoA bench of Justices Isaac Lesetedi, Leatile Dambe, Edwin Cameron, Johan Froneman and Goemekgabo Tebogo-Maruping said the hierarchical structure of courts has been uncontroversial and trite law accepted in the country until January 3, 2025. Justice Lesetedi said on that day, a three-judge bench of the High Court (by majority of two to one) held that it enjoyed power to overturn a judgment of the apex court. “It did so because it had said that the judgment breached Morupisi’s constitutional right to a fair trial,” he said.
Dismissing the High Court’s decision to release Morupisi from custody, Lesetedi explained that hierarchical structure of courts is universally accepted as a necessary feature of a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law. He stated that appeals from and reviews of lower courts decisions by a higher court in the hierarchy are a necessary safety feature to ensure that possible mistakes can be rectified and injustice prevented. “But in the end, the rule of law also requires finality in the interests of clarity, certainty and coherence. That finality is reached at the apex court of a country. Its word on matters coming before it is regarded final,” Lesetedi explained. The judge of the High Court has now sought to upend the orthodoxy and that it attempted to arrogate to itself the competence to sit in review or appeal over a judgment of the CoA. Justice Lesetedi emphasised that the constitutional and legislative provisions make it abundantly clear that the CoA is the final court of appeal in the country with jurisdiction to make final determinations on appeal from all the lower courts through the High Court. “This provision makes it clear that besides the High Court’s unlimited and original jurisdiction under section 95 (1) to hear and determine any civil or criminal proceedings under any law, it in addition has jurisdiction over any alleged contravention of those fundamental rights and freedoms. Nothing more. No exclusive or final jurisdiction,” he added.
