Judge Letsididi reported for misconduct
The Judiciary continues to earn itself a bad reputation thereby enhancing the potential to completely erode public confidence on this critical arm of government.
There has been a series of complaints filed against several judges including the Chief Justice on various accusations of misconduct from fellow judges and litigants.
In a recent development, Chief Justice Terrence Rannowane and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) have been asked to intervene in a matter in which Lobatse High Court Judge, Modiri Letsididi is accused of failing to deliver a judgement timeously in a case involving the Botswana Power Corporation (BPC) and a contractor.
According to letters of complaint dated 11th of September 2023 and 3rd of December 2021 under Letlole Makgane Attorneys, Justice Letsididi is accused of not delivering a judgement relating to a review application that was brought by a company identified as Drift Investment (Pty) Ltd against BPC. The letters show that Drift Investment had filed an urgent, interlocutory application and review application.
“Subsequently, only a ruling for the interlocutory application was delivered, not the review application. After a prolonged delay, and the retrieving of the file from archives, another date was set for the argument on the review application, for the second time”.
The second letter from Letlole Makgane, dated 11th of September 2023, says, “the matter was argued in April and a ruling was to be delivered on the 8th June 2023, but the same was not delivered, and no date has been communicated. This is a matter where the pleadings were finalised in the same year it arose, in 2020.”
The letter indicates that it is the third month since the ruling was due, and sixth month since arguments were made. “Our client's fear is that the matter will follow the route it took, and he is called again to pay costs,” the letter says.
According to the letter; “That the matter dragged on from 2020 to 2023 is prejudicial enough, the costs of having to pay twice for a matter that has been argued, makes it difficult not to agree with client. The prejudice suffered cannot be gainsaid.”
Another letter dated 3rd of December 2021 states that; “We had filed a review application under the afore-stated case number (MAHGB 000263 – 20).”
The letter states that; “Subsequent to finalisation of pleadings, an urgent application was filed sometime in September 2020, and at the hearing thereof, it was agreed that the merits would be consolidated with the application
and the argument will be heard on the 6th November 2020.”
It says the matter was heard, and the Court pronounced that the issue of urgent application would be decided on costs given to the succeeding party in the review application.
“The date of judgment was held to be the 27th February 2021, owing to the exigency of the matter, it being a procurement issue, and consequent to the directive of His Lordship that the procurement issues be dealt with expeditiously,” the letter states.
It further notes, “The 27th February came and passed, and the explanation was that His Lordship Letsididi was held up by Court of Appeal session, such that it delayed in him issuing judgment.”
According to this letter; “Two months down the line, in May 2021, we filed another urgent application for stay pending ruling, however it transpired that the ruling came out on aspect of urgency only and was only handed to the Respondent's legal practitioners, and in the review application, His Lordship merely stated that 'from what he saw of the documents' there were little prospects of success.”
The letter says to date no ruling has been rendered on the review application. Several attempts have been made. On the 23rd of September 2021 the matter was set down for status hearing, but His Lordship was not there.
“It was postponed to the 26th November 2021, still his Lordship was not available. To that end, with a full year having passed, and the Respondent at large since an application on an interdict having been dismissed, there is no end in sight for the review application,” the letter reads in part.
It concluded thus; “The file had been packed as a closed file, and with a plethora of letters written for clarity, we have nowhere to look for except to His Lordship, and the Judicial Service Commission.”
The matter arose from an urgent application filed by Drift Investment on the 22 September 2020, the Applicant filed a notice seeking, in the main, the following prayers; that the BPC should be interdicted and restrained from proceeding any further with the award of Tender NO. 4142/20 for various meters pending the finalisation of the parastatal's decision to annul the tender and the finalisation of Drift Investment's application for review. The background facts giving rise to these proceedings is that on or around February 2020 BPC floated, to the business community, tender NO. 3890/19 seeking the supply and delivery of 'single (1) phase and three (3) Phase PLC Split.
Drift Investment was one of the 15 bidders who submitted a bid. The bids were considered by BPC’s executive committee of the Procurement and Tender Committee ('PTC') on the 23 March 2020.
The primary reason Drift Investment stated why BCP ought to be interdicted pending the review application, is that the PTC did not have jurisdiction to consider and evaluate the tender as, by BPC's own regulation, its mandate is restricted to tenders of between P500 000 to P3.5million. The present tender being in excess of P10 million, the PTC had thus overstepped its mandate, argued Drift Investment.