The corruption and money laundering convict denied the chance because justices of the CoA namely Isaac Lesetedi and Leatile Dambe refused to recuse themselves from his case. Alongside other judges, they dismissed his stay of proceedings application. The judges refused to recuse themselves last week after hearing arguments on two of the applications moved by Morupisi based on the grounds that he wanted to stay and why he didn't want the judges to preside over his. “Both applications are dismissed and reasons will follow later,” stated the judges. Before the bench of justices Johan Froneman, Edwin Cameron, Goemekgabo Tebogo-Maruping, Dambe, and Lesetedi, Morupisi had moved the two applications of stay of proceedings and recusal of the two mentioned judges.
The ex-top civil servant had filed both applications after the State was granted an expedited appeal against the High Court's decision to release him from jail revising a seven-year jail sentence given by the CoA. In the application for a stay of proceedings, Morupisi had earlier indicated to the court that he was seeking to challenge CoA President Tau’s decision to empanel justices in his case. Morupisi said he was seeking a stay of proceedings to launch a review application before the High Court. “The review application will be mainly about the decision of Justice Tau to empanel the justices of the CoA when she should have excused herself from taking such a decision,” he said. The embattled Morupisi, through his attorney Obonye Jonas, had argued for the stay on grounds that Justice Tau was part of the Justices who enhanced his sentence and that she shouldn't have been the one to empanel. According to Jonas, who also sought an interim interdict of Justice Tau’s decision, she should have given the task to someone else even if there was no bias. “To a reasonable person, the decision would look somehow and that is why we felt that Judge Tau should have not taken the decision to empanel the judges,” he reasoned. Jonas also stated that Justice Tau should have chosen not to go with the decision to empanel even though by law she is allowed to do so. However, by the mere fact that she was involved in the sentencing should have been a matter of principle to allow someone else to do the job, the attorney argued.
He explained that Tau’s decision raised the issue of conflict of interest and that it offended Morupisi’s right to a fair trial. In the recusal application, Jonas stated that Morupisi's reasons were that the two justices previously dealt with a matter involving the Directorate of Public Prosecutions and Timothy Marsland. Marsland is the former director of the now liquidated Capital Management Botswana (CMB), a company he was accused of awarding it an unauthorised contract to manage Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF) mandate. As a kickback, he got a valuable interest in the form of a Land Cruiser at the value of R630,988.99, which ultimately led to his prosecution and conviction for corruption and money laundering. “We only got to know about the panel when the judges walked into the court, therefore, we couldn't make the recusal application earlier,” he said.
Morupisi also told the court that some days before the case, they wrote to Justice Tau to enquire about members of the panel and that she never responded to their letter of enquiry. Meanwhile, the State in its response had said both applications be dismissed and they be awarded costs on a punitive scale as it was an abuse of the court process. Attorney Tshiamo Rantao explained that Morupisi now wanted to choose his own judges. “No sufficient facts have been placed before the court to justify why he sought the judges to recuse themselves,” he said. “It looks like he is interested in choosing his own judges rather than those empanelled. This is an abuse of court and that is why we seek punitive costs.” The State expedited the appeal. The hearing is today (Tuesday).
