Justice Garekwe, who yesterday refused to recuse herself from presiding over a case in which the State is seeking to overturn Morupisi’s release from prison, has come down heavy on the latter and his attorneys for levelling unsubstantiated accusations of bias against her. In her ruling, Justice Garekwe says the allegations made against her are not only bold, but the actions of attorney Obonye Jonas and his client (Morupisi) do not evince actions of people who reasonably apprehended any reasonable bias on her part as a result of what she is alleged to have done. “The applicant who was not in my presence at the time it is alleged I sought to influence State attorney, Tshiamo Rantao, not to abandon the stay relief, informs the court that he was informed by his attorney, Jonas, about what transpired. Safe for the generalised allegation that I sought to so do, there is no clear, logical and convincing evidence pointing to how I did what I am alleged to have done; what words or actions I used, which could have led Jonas to perceive them as persuasion directed at Rantao not to abandon the stay relief,” she stated The judge explained that it is simply stated in the founding affidavit that she sought to persuade Rantao by calling upon him not to abandon the stay application, which it is said Rantao cringed and looked unamused and uncomfortable owing to the suggestion that she made to him, which had the trappings of coaching him on how to conduct his clients' case.
She said the suggestion that Rantao reacted in the manner he is alleged to have done, paints a picture of something very serious having been said or done by her. “From his words, Jonas observed everything and to the extent that this application has been brought and these allegations made, it suggests that he used his full faculties on the day and at the time in question to fully inform himself on what transpired in my Chambers,” Garekwe said. Justice Garekwe stated that the meeting referred to was held in her Chambers on Saturday afternoon, January 4, 2024 and Morupisi, though not part of those who were in her Chambers, was in court. She said in the proceedings, surely, the opportunity arose, more so when the matter was still fresh in the mind of Jonas to not only inform him of my perceived biased conduct, a conduct that evinced that “what I desired was to see him in prison” as it has been alleged, but to also advise him regarding seeking my recusal. “I later, after a passage of a reasonably long period of time, entered court for purposes of issuing the scheduling order. Having had the opportunity to speak to his client, the opportunity presented itself for Jonas, on behalf of the applicant, to raise the issue of their discomfort and disquiet with my behaviour and/or attitude. This they did not do,” the judge said.
