The jurisprudential saga surrounding the Carter Morupisi case has finally reached its terminus, culminating in a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision that reaffirms the rigidity of judicial hierarchy and provokes earnest contemplation on the limits of appellate power. In an unprecedented legal peregrination, the High Court (HC) found itself at variance with the CoA. In the stumble and bumble of that ping-pong match, the stage was set for a riveting judicial debate on the scope of legal review, the doctrine of vertical stare decisis, and the imperative of judicial independence.
The CoA’s ultimate disposition, dismissing the HC’s intervention and reinstating a harsher custodial sentence, has been lauded by some as a necessary reinforcement of the apex court’s finality and rebuked by others as an act of judicial absolutism, or more brashly, arrogance, and the apex court’s glaring failure to balance the limits of appellate power, the independence of the judiciary, and the role of perceived bias in judicial decision-making; thus, unwittingly stifling remedial recourse. At the epicentre of this legal dialectic lies the tension between the doctrine of stare decisis and the imperative to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Without mincing his words, in delivering the verdict in a calm tone laced with a subtle air of hauteur, exuding subdued oodles of confidence, Justice Isaac Lesetedi said, “It is only the CoA that can revisit its decisions.” In short, the ruling implies the HC’s decision was ultra vires; it overstepped its authority, making it reversible on appeal. But this raises the question; did the HC truly act beyond its powers by scrutinising the CoA’s ruling? And doesn’t the concern that the CoA might have been swayed by factors outside pure legal reasoning carry weight? While stare decisis mandates deference to the highest court, one would argue that the HC’s venture into the matter was not a mere exercise in foolhardy bravado or childish adventurism in the judicial terrain, but an attempt, however unorthodox, to correct what it perceived as an erosion of judicial objectivity. Indeed, the words of Justice Lakhvinder Singh Walia, lamenting that to let Morupisi “escape with a rap on the knuckles” would not only diminish public confidence in the judiciary but, “also be seen to undermine the Honourable President's stated desire to see an end to corruption," served as the crux of the controversy, raising legitimate concerns about whether external considerations tainted the appellate ruling. By reaffirming its earlier ruling, the CoA made it clear that no subordinate court can challenge its pronouncements, a stance firmly rooted in legal tradition and generally upheld across common law jurisdictions. However, in the 1932 Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co, Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S.
