President Mokgweetsi Masisi and Chief Justice Terrence Rannowane have been called to court by Justice Gaopalelwe Ketlogetswe in a case in which Acting Chief Justice Godfrey Dijeng has refused to withdraw himself.
President Mokgweetsi Masisi and Chief Justice Terrence Rannowane have been called to court by Justice Gaopalelwe Ketlogetswe in a case in which Acting Chief Justice Godfrey Dijeng has refused to withdraw himself.
Because the Chief Justice office, which Dijeng represents, is involved in the case, Ketlogetswe had requested that Dijeng recuse himself.
Botswana's Acting Chief Justice refuses to withdraw from the case
The allegations of judicial meddling about the "murder" allegations against Lobatse legislator Dr. Thapelo Matsheka, made by Ketlogetswe against the Chief Justice and Minister for State President, Kabo Morwaeng, are at the center of the situation.
In a series of claims against the two, Ketlogetswe claimed they had attempted to sway his judgment in Matsheka's case. Matsheka was charged with the ritual kidnapping and murder of a seven-year-old Lobatse boy named Tlotso Karema.
Now that he is facing disciplinary action, Ketlogetswe has filed a request to stop Rannowane, Masisi, and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from disciplining him in his continuing dispute.
Ketlogetswe filed a request for Dijeng's recusal earlier this week through his attorneys, noting that Dijeng is presently the Acting Chief Justice, and the Chief Justice office is the third respondent in the case.
In dismissing the application today, Dijeng argued that it was not filed following the court's regulations on applications, which require them to be supported by an affidavit that discloses the relevant facts.
Dijeng added that no proof was presented in the request for the judge's removal because none was provided through an affidavit or any other legal means of establishing evidence.
Dijeng stated in his order that Boko's viewpoint is, at the very least absurd and baseless. He said this, knowing there was no evidence on file indicating that the third respondent's appointment (CJ) was a favor to the judge or that the judge was paid for the assignment to the acting appointment.
He said it would take convincing proof to overcome the presumption of impartiality to prove that the judge has received a reward, emphasizing this point.
Ketlogetswe requested an interim interdict last year to prevent the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from hearing the case he had filed against Chief Justice (CJ) Terence Rannowane and President Mokgweetsi Masisi.
Masisi then forwarded Ketlogetswe's complaint to the JSC because he did not want the Commission to handle his case. The hearing of the applicant's primary application was scheduled for Wednesday. Still, Ketlogetswe's attorney, Advocate Duma Boko, argued why he believed Dijeng would not be impartial in deciding his case.
Boko has contended that significant developments occurred after the primary application was filed on November 25, 2022. He stated that Terence Rannowane, Chief Justice (CJ), applied to strike out averments. As a result, the case was heard on December 12, 2022, and the decision was rendered on December 15, 2022.
The case in which Rannowane had filed an interlocutory application to dismiss claims deemed "scandalous" and potentially harming his and the judiciary's reputations ended in a victory for Rannowane.
Dijeng's appointment as acting CJ from December 15, 2022, until January 8, 2023, was made known to Ketlogetswe. Therefore, Boko emphasized in his submission that the hearing and decision for the main application had been planned.
This is so that they took place while Dijeng was still acting as Chief Justice. Therefore, Boko said that Dijeng's appointment as acting CJ also compromised the allegations ruling. However, Dijeng asserts in his declaration that there is no proof the court established a date for the verdict in the main application.
"To argue that the judgment was rendered within the acting appointment period is only wishful thinking on the applicant's part," Dijeng added. Additionally, Boko claimed that Dijeng would receive financial gain due to his appointment as acting CJ.
Compared to the other justices who could have been chosen, Boko argued that Dijeng had an advantage in compensation due to the work of the acting CJ. Boko claimed that since this was a favor Rannowane had extended to Dijeng as payment, a judge should not be allowed to preside over the case.
A status hearing for the case will take place on January 23.