Morupisi, in his affidavit filed yesterday, had claimed bias on the part of the judge stating that she wanted him behind bars at any cost. Morupisi also accused the judge of conflict saying she had presided over another case linked to his corruption matter.
Responding to Morupisi, the state argued that since the alleged conversation favouring their case occurred in chambers before the matter was heard in open court, he should have sought recusal at that time.
The state argues Morupisi should not seek to hitch hike the state’s urgent appeal process by moving unmeritorious urgent applications for recusal. They want the urgent recusal application to be dismissed urgent to allow for the appeal process to continue.
Further, the state contends that Morupisi should not derail the urgent appeal process with unmeritorious recusal applications, as his legal team was aware Justice Garekwe would preside over the case last Friday. Therefore, state urged the court to dismiss the urgent recusal application to allow the appeal to proceed without delay.
“To put it bluntly, this application is not just as exercise in futility but a glaring attempt to create smoke where there is no fire. It is a fishing expedition in waters long since declared barren, leaving this honourable court with nothing to reel in but empty nets of speculation. Such tactics are unworthy of serious legal consideration and should be dismissed,” read the state's argument.
The state further addressed the alleged incident of bias on the part of Justice Garekwe saying: “The alleged insistence on the application of stay of the High Court order dated January 3, 2025, is substantiated and unfounded, even on the applicant’s papers because the applicant does not even explain why he did not immediately move an application for the judge's recusal despite what he alleges to be a basis for bias following the alleged conversation in chambers, which occurred on Saturday January 4, 2025. Instead the applicant proceeded to the hearing of the matter the following day without a hint of objection or protest to her ladyship, Garekwe JA’s competence to hear and determine the matter.”
On the point that the judge had presided over similar matters, the state believed the cases are irrelevant to the current matter, explaining that the judge only presided on the liquidity of CMB, “which, as a matter of fact, was not solvent at all.”
“With respect to the CMB case, the applicant has failed to attach any specific case or explain how that case is indicative of any partiality,” the state argued.
On the point that the Chief Justice ought to have been party to empanel the judges for purposes of hearing the appeal, the state argued Morupisi should have raised this concern after realising the empanelment had occurred in the first place.
“In fact, the applicant has not moved such an application here either, therefore the attempt to obtain such relief is incompetent,” further reads the state's response.
