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.
