Throughout the Netflix blockbuster, 'The Trial of Chicago 7,' the judge is depicted as a heinous man who leaned more towards the State against a rancorous group of protestors charged with conspiracy to incite a riot, amongst other offences. Until today, the last time I heard a jury's decision under heavy scrutiny to the point of dividing public opinion was in the said movie wherein Judge Hoffman was dubbed an embarrassment due to his heavy bias toward the US government in a case of anti-war protest movement organisers during the 1968 Democratic National Convention protest. The heavy-handed Judge Hoffman adopted a pro-prosecution posture throughout the trial, displaying antipathy towards the Chicago defendants and their lawyer. Judge Hoffman allowed evidence favouring the government and went all out to deny that which could assist the defendants.
The jury ruled with an iron fist in his courtroom, turning the trial into a laughing stock. Consequently, Judge Hoffman was forced into retirement at 87 years. Now, let us focus our attention on Botswana. But before then, allow me to quote a verse from the scriptures: 'He that hath ears to hear let him hear' (Matthew 11:15, King James version). The ugly fact is that a time has come for Botswana’s judiciary to introspect. Indications are that the judiciary is teetering on a cliff edge. Recently, a spate of court cases pitting Morupisi and the State has laid bare the reality of the judiciary's integrity being tested. The competency of jurists to rise to the occasion in national interest and democratic concern has come to the fore. While it appears to be a challenging time for our democracy, judicial independence seems to be corroded. This begs the question: Do judges still have moral judgment or a clear conscience? Assuming they do, let us unravel the threat posed to the democracy of this nation by a morally bankrupt judiciary if judges are found wanting. Whatever happened inside court on December 6, 2024 when the Court of Appeal sentenced former Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) Carter Morupisi, to seven years in prison on three counts of corruption and money laundering must have been hailed as a crucial point in the country's fight against corruption. But was it? Morupisi received 18 months, five years and seven years for all the three charges respectively. They were to run concurrently. However, it was Justice Lakhvinder Singh Walia's statement, which caused a stir. Delivering the verdict, Justice Walia stated thus: "I have agonised over the sentence to be imposed on the Appellant bearing in mind that this Court would be failing in its duty and seen to be eroding public confidence in the judicial system if the Appellant were to escape with a rap on the knuckles.
