Judiciary plunges into deeper crisis
An alleged intention by the Chief Justice to call for the convening of the High Court Rules Committee to amend Order 42 Rule 1B might plunge the judiciary into deeper crisis dampen the public confidence erosion, Botswana Guardian has learnt.
Sources have told this publication that Chief Justice Terrence Rannowane is intending to convene the Committee which is chaired by Lobatse High Court Judge Modiri Letsididi to consider the amendment of Order 42 Rule 1B to give him absolute powers to empanel judges who are to preside over the controversial case which has pitted the opposition Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) against the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).
The UDC has taken the electoral body to court seeking orders that the UDC be allowed to deploy its agents to observe and monitor the national voter registration process which was to start last month. The IEC has since suspended the process indefinitely pending the finalisation of the legal tussle with the UDC. The UDC vs IEC case returns today (Friday) at the Francistown High Court Division.
Allegations are that the Chief Justice wanted the Order 42 Rule 1B to be amended to empower him to hand-pick judges and constitute a panel even after cases have been allocated. This development is said to be emanating from the UDC against IEC case which is before the Francistown High Court. News coming from the Administration of Justice corridors are that some of the committee members believe that this would be an absurd development to happen in the Administration of Justice and have vowed that should it find light of the day they will quit the committee. It is argued that the Chief Justice would have gone overboard if he proceed and ‘abuse’ his powers as he would be forcing his hand to have things done to favour certain litigants which shouldn’t be the case in the judiciary as all litigants should be treated equally.
Sources have revealed that members of the High Court Rules Committee are of the view that should they entertain the intent by the chief justice their integrity would be put on the spotlight as judicial officers. It is also feared that such an act cannot be condoned as the judiciary is currently ceased with a sensitive court case which also has questions of interpretation of the same Order under debate.
After IEC lost the first round to the UDC, the commission then appealed the case and the chief justice appointed two more judges to join Justice Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe to preside on the case. The argument by the chief justice is that he is empowered to empanel judges after a determination was made that the case is of exceptional public importance. It was argued that the High Court Act under section 6 provides that every proceeding in the court shall be heard and disposed off before a single judge or such number of judges as may be determined by the chief justice.
“In addition to Section 6, Order 42 Rule 1B of the High Court Rules empowers the chief justice to direct that a case be heard by a panel of judges, where it has been that such a case is of exceptional public importance. It is on this basis that in all cases that are of exceptional public importance, the chief justice has directed that there be more than one judge sitting to hear the matter,” said Acting Chief Registrar Boikobo Keaikitse. This has since been countered by the UDC which reference with the order of Justice Bugalo Maripe in the Komboni Vs Chief Justice matter.
It is argued that: a case must have been presented for registration to the Registrar; it must be a case of exceptional public importance; the determination of this quality or nature of the case is that of the registrar; the registrar must have informed the chief justice or any person acting in that position of the fact that a case of exceptional public importance has been presented for registration; all this must happen before the case is allocated; and the purpose of all these steps is to enable the chief justice to determine whether judges should be nominated or empaneled by him in terms of section 6 of the High Court Act. While Ketlogetswe has also been alleged to be targeted to be removed from the High Court Rules Committee, this week he declined to comment on the matter.
“Unfortunately, I am not able to answer any of your questions,” said Justice Ketlogetswe. Ketlogetswe was once embroiled in a legal suit against the chief justice when he challenged his transfer to Francistown High Court Division to give space for Justice Barnabas Nyamadzabo who is the current IEC Chairman. Justice Nyamadzabo was transferred to Gaborone so that he could be close to the IEC head-office. Contacted for comment Justice Letsididi said “kindly refer your inquiry to the Acting Chief Registrar”.
The Administration of Justice had not responded to a questionnaire sent to them by press time. In a follow up attempt Keaikitse was said to be in a meeting.