Khama alone can appoint Judges SA Advocate
News
Government has reiterated that the president Lt. Gen. Dr. Seretse Khama Ian Khama is under no obligation to follow the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) recommendations when appointing Judges of the High Court.
In a packed open Court of Appeal session this week during oral arguments on the Khama versus Law Society of Botswana (LSB) and Omphemetse Motumise case, a South African Advocate, Senior Counsel, Mohammad Anwar Albertins representing Botswana government maintained that, in accordance with the constitution, President Khama alone can appoint a judge and that extends to rejecting a recommendation from the JSC.
Albertins who was engaged by the Attorney General insisted that, “there is no obligation for the president to follow JSC recommendations. Reasons might only be known to him, and he is not forced to state them.” In the matter Law Society of Botswana (LSB) is appealing a High Court judgment in which they were challenging President Khama's decision to reject the appointment of a private attorney Omphemetse Motumise, who was then recommended by the JSC to be an acting judge of the High Court.
The case was then dismissed on 5 February 2016 by a High Court bench consisting of three judges, Justices Lakvinder Walia, Abenigo Tafa and Phadi Solomon. LSB’s pivotal argument was that Khama has no powers to turn down the JSC's recommendations when appointing judges of the High court.
LSB’s borne of contention was also premised on the believe that JSC was acting in line with section 96(2) of the country’s constitution which states that “the other judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission.”
However the government attorney Albertins, in the appeal case of the matter on Monday, maintained that the provision does not force the President to appoint as per the JSC’s recommendations. He insisted to a presiding bench of 5 Court of Appeal Judges Monametsi Gaongalelwe, Isaac Lesetedi, Lord Arthur Hamilton, Lord Alistair Abernethy and Jacobus Brand that Khama is and should the ultimate appointing authority.
“The president has a discretion as he is the one who appoints. He alone can take the ultimate decision of who to appoint or not appoint as a judge. He can also review on reason” the Advocate pointed out. He said the disputed section 96(2) of the constitution sets out procedure of appointing. According to Albertins, the synthesis, formulation as well as wording of the section is clear that president only appoints while adding that it means he can also decline an appointment, and then when another recommendation comes he can accept it.
According to Khama, JSC, AG heads of argument seen by Weekend Post, Albertins maintains that the president has the power and discretion under section 96(2) of the constitution, properly construed, to refuse to appoint candidates recommended for appointment by the JSC.
“He has the power and a discretion to refuse to appoint a judge recommended by the JSC,” court papers point out. “Section 96(2) of course requires the president to act in accordance with the JSC’s advice when he appoints judges, but the section does not require him to exercise his power of appointment whenever the JSC advices him to do so. The president retains an independent discretion to determine if and when to exercise that power.”
Albertins further pointed out that had the constitution framers intended the president to have no discretion to refuse to appoint judges recommended for appointment by the JSC, section 96(2) could simply have said that the president “must appoint judges recommended for appointment” (or indeed that the JSC has the power to appoint. Section 96(2) says neither, he added.
He said in the papers that JSC has no physical building, staff or investigative capacity. He highlighted: “whilst it is a standing committee it does not have the power to investigate the background of nominees for appointment to the bench or to verify the truth or accuracy of the information provided by the applicants. Hence whilst candidates may be technically qualified they may still nevertheless not be suitable for appointment to the High Court.”
The papers posit that on the other hand the president has the investigative and advisory powers of the State available to him. “The organs of state at his disposal have the power to investigate the background of individual applicants and to verify the information provided by those applicants. The president may rely on advice of his own cabinet and may consult his own advisors.”
The appellants, LSB, represented by Advocate, Senior Counsel, Alec Freund from the onset differed with the state in terms of interpretation of section 96.2 of the constitution. Freund told court also in an oral submission of arguments session that “JSC selects a judge and the president should just approve. The president approves the judge that JSC has selected.”
He said, what is not in dispute at least is that the “president appoints” while adding that “but” it should be done in line with the recommendation of the JSC. According to Freund, the president should only rubberstamp the decision of the JSC. “President only has the power to say yes and not no. He should just act in instruction from the JSC.”
He maintained that the Executive should have no power in the judiciary so that the arms of government remain independent. “Once the president receives a recommendation from the JSC to appoint someone as a judge he must appoint. Yes he must just appoint. The constitution confers JSC to make the judges appointment.”
In addition LSB, Motumise court papers further point out that the High Court should have adopted the universally settled meaning of the phrase “acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission” in section 96(2), taking into account the provision’s language, history and purpose.
“We submit that the ordinary meaning of the language of section 96(2) was that it imposed a duty on the president to act in accordance with the advice of the JSC by implementing its advice. If he refuses to make the appointment, he cannot sensibly be said to act in accordance with the JSC advice,” Freud stated in the papers.
He said that it is also clear from the history of section 96(2), as with all similarly worded commonwealth constitutions, that it was intended from the outset to vest the effective power appointment of High Court Judges in the JSC. The president’s role was a mere formality, he stated.
The Advocate highlighted that the purpose of the requirement that the president act in accordance with the advice by the JSC is to enhance the independence and standing of the judiciary entrusting the effective power of appointment to the JSC, a non-partisan and independent body of standing.
Another constitution section which was brought into sharp focus was section 47(2) which states that “in the exercise of any function conferred upon him by this Constitution or any other law the President shall, unless it is otherwise provided, act in his own deliberate judgment and shall not be obliged to follow the advice tendered by any other person or authority.”
According to the LSB heads of argument, section 96(2) clearly “provides otherwise” because it says in so many words that the president must act in accordance with the advice of the JSC. The society further stated that when appointments are done as per JSC recommendations, it instills a sense of confidence in the public as far as the independence in the appointment of judges and separation of powers is concerned – both of which are under heavy scrutiny from some quarters in the society.
At the end of the Appeal session, Lord Hamilton, who was sitting in for President of the Court of Appeal Ian Kirby – who was not present for unclear reasons – reserved judgement in the matter adding that it will be communicated in the sands of time.
Meanwhile, after rejecting Motumise to be a High Court judge as per JSC recommendation, Khama then moved swiftly to, instead of him (Motumise), appoint Zein Kebonang who is a twin brother to one of his cabinet minister under his government Sadique Kebonang.
News
BPS, Mosala Funeral Parlour butt heads over SA national remains
A squabble has broken out between Pule Mosala Funeral Parlour and the Botswana Police Service (BPS) over the remains of a South African national who has been in the Mosala mortuary for more than nineteen months. The deceased was one of 10 suspects who were controversially shot dead during a lengthy shootout with law enforcement authorities in Gaborone’s Phase 2 early last year.
The deceased individual’s family based in Soweto, has encountered difficulties in repatriating the body which has been in the care of Mosala Mortuary Services. Following the incident, it has emerged that all 10 bodies were transported to PFG mortuary in Lobatse for a brief period while the police attempted to locate their next of kin. It is reported that the families of the deceased were eventually identified and informed to come and identify their loved ones, including other South African nationals who were part of the criminal group. These families also witnessed the autopsy procedures conducted at Princess Marina Hospital in Gaborone.
Except for the family from Soweto, nine of the bodies were claimed and taken by their separate relatives. The Soweto family claims they lack the resources to bring the body back to South Africa and has made it known that they are looking for money. To end the supposed verbal agreement over the body’s storage for repatriation, Mosala Funeral Service has filed a case against the police at the Lobatse High Court.
According to Keakantse Mmotlhana, the company’s Sales and Marketing Manager, 10 people who were killed in Phase 2 by gunfire were all temporarily transferred to one of PFG’s branches in Lobatse by the police while efforts were made to find their next of kin. She expressed outrage at the statement made by the Minister of Defense and Security, recently.
After Assistant Police Commissioner Dipheko Motube called her office to apologize for giving the Minister wrong information during a news conference, she confirmed that they had accepted the apologies. He made it clear that one of the victims was still at Pule Mortuary in Lobatse.
Bushie Mosala, the director and owner of Mosala Funeral Services, confirmed that the body of a South African national has been in his mortuary for the past nineteen months. He expressed his desire for the police to remove the corpse from the mortuary, characterising the situation as a “nightmare.” He has instructed his legal team to file a lawsuit against the police in the Lobatse High Court concerning the body.
Mosala urged the acting Police Commissioner to come forward and apologize to the nation for the situation, asserting that the public has the right to know the truth regarding the body of the South African national, w
C -002Bhich was preserved by the police as evidence.
The South African High Commission in Gaborone had not responded to queries from Weekend Post at the time going of going to press.
News
BOSETU frustrated by Gov’t new dispute winning strategy
Botswana Sectors of Teachers Union (BOSETU) has expressed alarm over a troubling trend by the government. Tobokani Rari, Secretary General of the BOSETU, stated that it appears that these days, whenever there is a dispute between workers and the government, the administration is fast to run to the courts to attempt and muffle unions.
“This is quite disturbing development, we have seen it with the Botswana Doctors Union, there was a disagreement over the shift allowance, government rushed to court, they indeed got order that was saying the doctors should go and do the work. We have seen it with the nurses, they rushed to court they got the order, we are now seeing it with the teachers, they rushed to the court and they got what they wanted,” said Rari, who also served as the Secretary General of BOFEPUSU.
Rari raised concerns that the government’s enforcement of teacher’s work, through a court order will result in reduced classroom productivity and morale. Rari added that this situation would negatively impact labour relations and teachers emotional wellbeing due to dissatisfaction in their work places leading to persistently poor academic outcomes.
“You can get an order that forces people to work, but what happens at work, it heightens emotions, it destroys relationships and the morale goes down and productivity does. Courts and judgments don’t solve productivity issues. Productivity only comes when people are satisfied at the workplace, so if you force them to work through a court order then you may not get the maximum out of the working population,” said Rari
MESD vs BOSETU COURT CASE
“As you are aware, the Ministry of Education approached courts and they were demanding three things from the court in this case between BOSETU and the ministry. First, they were demanding that the joint letter that was written by BOSETU and Botswana Teachers Union (BTU) asking members to stop doing course work because there was no agreement be declared unlawfully and BOSETU should write to its members and withdraw that letter within 24hrs. The second thing that they were looking for, was to interdict BOSETU from further issuing any instructions to that effect going forward. Lastly was that court should hold BOSETU to pay the cost of the lawsuit on a punitive scale,” Rari said.
Rari stated that the court decided to rule in favour of the Ministry of Education on all three relieves sought, that the savingram should be declared unlawful, that BOSETU should withdraw the contents savingram within 24hrs.
Court also said BOSETU should not issue any of such instructions going forward up until the case of contempt that BOSETU has taken to court, the contempt of the 2009 judgment has been decided. Court also awarded cost to the ministry on a punitive scale.
“BOSETU is a law abiding citizen and therefore we are bound by any laws and judgments that are there in Botswana and arise on the courts of Botswana hence we have complied with the order. On the 31st after the court case, we wrote to all our members and told them that the contents of that savingram as far as coursework is concerned has been withdrawn,” said Rari.
Rari said what happened in this case is that the judge decided to listen to the urgency without the responding affidavits of the opposing party, BOSETU, and went on to rule the merit of the case, which surprised the union.
“However we have been in discussion with our lawyers because if we leave things like this, we feel like we cannot leave that unchallenged. We have taken a decision to appeal the judgment,” Rari confirmed.
2023 COURSEWORK AND INVIGILATION AGREEMENT
“We would like to make our members aware that the following day after the judgment, we were able to meet the Ministry of Education and we have arrived at a conclusion that we signed an agreement that coursework rates will be increased by 5%. If court had ruled that coursework is the duty of the teachers’ means it wouldn’t have been any agreement after the court case, it tells you that the issue is still open and it is on the table. We have arrived at an agreement that there is going to be an increment on all components of coursework and invigilation,” Rari pointed out.
Rari further explained that Article 2 says union party is to submit detailed proposals on the intensity of the coursework for further engagement. Intensity of coursework means where the coursework payment starts in terms of varying from different subjects. He said the outcome based subject that are taught Maun Senior Secondary School and Moeng college which are agriculture and hotel and tourism is that ministry have agreed and acknowledge that there are some peculiarity in their coursework and therefore should be paid in line with the peculiarities that are contained in their coursework.
CONGRESS RESOLUTION
Rari pointed out the resolutions taken at the conference where the issue of application of corporal punishment was addressed. “BOSETU will issue out a memo to their members to advise them that they should not apply corporal punishment, they should leave it to be applied in line with the Education Act.”
News
BMC sees red as mass buffaloes disrupt plans to supply schools
The Botswana Meat Commission (BMC) which had struck a deal with the Ministry of Education to supply some schools in the northern part of the country is counting losses as mass migration of buffalos jeopardize the Commission’s plans.
Information reaching this publication shows that the beef exporter was recently given the greenlight to supply government schools with beef. According to documents seen by this publication, as a result BMC had scheduled to buy and collect cattle in the Nata-Gweta and Boteti constituencies from 11 to 17 September.
This was after BMC and the Ministry of Education struck a deal for the former to supply government schools with beef. Letters exchanged between Ministry officials state that it has been recommended to the ministry to support BMC by allowing it to supply schools with beef products.
The Ministry indicated that it was aware that some schools have contracts that are currently running with suppliers such as local butcheries.
The Ministry revealed that at the same time BMC has 256 tins of frozen quality meat at its Maun Plant.
The Ministry requested the Director-Regional Operations to appoint an officer to manage the procurement of meat for schools that do not currently have running contracts. The Ministry further stated that Modalities of collection will be arranged between the region and the schools identified.
According to the Ministry, a list of schools including the condition of their cold rooms and their number of deliveries and kilograms per week they buy should be compiled. The Ministry also requested its officials to share the list with headquarters and the acting director-Basic Education, and engage BMC accordingly to procure.
But this plan ran into trouble after it emerged that between 300 to 500 buffalos migrated from the buffalo fence area to Nata, Dukwi and Mosetse areas.
The Department of Veterinary Services sprang into acting by revising movement protocol for cloven-hoofed animals with immediate effect following buffalo sightings in zone 3b which covers Nata/Sowa, zone 3c which is around the Dukwi areas as well as zone 6a, which covers the Mosetse area, which fall under zones, 3b, 3c, 5,6a and 8.
The Department of Veterinary Services indicated that as a result, movement of live cloven-hoofed animals and their products out of zones 3b, 3c, 5, 6a and 8 were prohibited and that movement of live cloven-hoofed animals within and into these zones is only allowed for direct slaughter at licensed slaughter facilities under veterinary movement permit issued through BAITS.
The department also indicated that the movement of fresh products derived from cloven-hoofed animals such as raw milk, skins and fresh meat into these zones is also only allowed under a similar arrangement.
Movement of live cloven-hoofed animals into these zones for rearing and other purposes will not be allowed, and farmers and the general public is requested to continue being vigilant and report any buffalo sightings to the nearest veterinary office, the police or the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, the department said.
Meanwhile the Ministry of Agriculture has stated that following the press release on prohibition of movement of live cloven-hooved animals and their products in and out of Zones 3b, 3c, 5, 6a & 8, the acting Minister of Agriculture Karabo Gare, his counterpart Acting Minister of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism Mabuse Pule, acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture Mr. Joshua Moloi, Director of Veterinary Services Dr Kefentse Motshegwa and other government officials visited the areas of Sepako and Dukwi respectively on a mission to consult with communities regarding the invasion of the places by buffalos.
Minister Gare alluded that they have been sent by the President of Botswana, who is equally worried by the current situation. He noted that the affected areas have a total of around 300000 cattle and if the situation goes unchecked, there might be detrimental effects on the economy of this country.
He encouraged the communities to help government going forward by reporting any spotted buffalos in their areas, emphasizing that buffalos are dangerous and can kill people and that care should be exercised at all times.
The Director of Veterinary Services mentioned that they closed the above mentioned zones to allow for testing of buffalos & cattle for foot & mouth disease. The wildlife department’s Director Mr. Moremi Batshabang assured farmers and the community that they will eliminate small clusters of buffalos found within communities and translocate larger clusters to ensure their safety.