The State has launched a vigorous appeal to reinstate the sentence of former government official Carter Morupisi, arguing that the High Court lacked the authority to interfere with a ruling made by the Court of Appeal (CoA). In a detailed argument presented before the Court of Appeal on Friday, the State contended that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction and that the presiding judge, Justice Zein Kebonang, was conflicted and should have recused himself from the case due to perceived biases.
The crux of the State’s argument revolves around the hierarchy of Botswana’s judiciary and the constitutional boundaries that define the powers of different courts. The State argued that once the CoA has adjudicated a matter, its decision is final and cannot be revisited or altered by the High Court, even under Section 18 of the Constitution. The State emphasized that the Constitution recognizes the CoA as the apex court in the country, and the High Court must respect its decisions, highlighting the risk of undermining the integrity of the judiciary if the High Court’s interference is allowed to stand.
“The CoA is at the apex of our judiciary, and the High Court is beneath it. The intervention of the High Court in this case threatens the core values of our judicial system and the integrity of the appeals process,” the State submitted. It argued that allowing such interference could have far-reaching consequences, potentially destabilizing the entire legal framework and eroding public trust in the judicial system.
The Issue of Jurisdiction and Interpretation
In its appeal, the State highlighted what it views as a fundamental failure by the High Court to properly assess the jurisdictional boundaries in the case. The High Court, according to the State, failed to recognize that Morupisi’s case had already been adjudicated by the CoA, and thus, any intervention by the High Court could be seen as an unlawful review of the CoA’s decision. The State further criticized the High Court for misinterpreting remarks made by the CoA in its ruling, arguing that the comments were made in passing and had no bearing on the final sentence imposed on Morupisi.
The State pointed out that the CoA’s judgment should be read as a whole, and the High Court’s selective reading and isolated interpretation of certain remarks were improper. “The court below ignored the principles of interpretation and read the paragraph in isolation instead of considering the judgment in its entirety,” the State argued. The State also stressed that the High Court had no grounds to suggest any impropriety or bias on the part of the CoA judges, particularly in relation to the President of Botswana’s potential involvement in the case, which was merely speculative.
Justice Kebonang’s Recusal
Another contentious issue raised by the State is the involvement of Justice Zein Kebonang in the proceedings. The State contended that Justice Kebonang was conflicted due to familial connections that could have influenced his impartiality in the case. Specifically, the State pointed out that Justice Kebonang’s twin brother and mother had allegedly benefited from funds linked to Capital Management Botswana (CMB), a company that had received a tender under Morupisi’s direction. This connection, according to the State, created a clear conflict of interest and necessitated Kebonang’s recusal from the case.
The State referenced a previous case in which Justice Kebonang had recused himself due to similar allegations involving his brother’s financial ties to CMB. It argued that the facts in Morupisi’s case mirrored those in the earlier case, and as such, Kebonang’s refusal to recuse himself from this case was both problematic and inconsistent with his prior actions.
“Kebonang’s refusal to recuse himself from this matter demonstrated a manifestly biased approach. The facts underlying the need for recusal were clear, and yet, he chose to disregard them,” the State contended. The State also noted that Justice Kebonang had taken an adversarial stance against the State’s conduct, specifically criticizing their choice of legal counsel and dismissing the allegations as unethical, despite the fact that attorney Mboki Chilisa was not involved in the proceedings at hand.
The Call for Judicial Integrity
In its appeal, the State emphasized that the judicial system’s credibility was at stake, and that any failure to address these issues could lead to a loss of public confidence in the courts. The State expressed concern that allowing the High Court’s intervention in this matter would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the principles of judicial hierarchy and stability.
“It is imperative that this Court steps in to restore order and stability,” the State argued. “The trust that the public has in the Judiciary is at stake, and a swift and decisive resolution is required to preserve the integrity of our courts.”
As the appeal progresses before the Court of Appeal, the State is seeking to ensure that the integrity of Botswana’s judicial system remains intact and that the principles of constitutional law are upheld. The intervention of the High Court in this matter and the perceived bias of Justice Kebonang are central to the State’s case, which aims to reaffirm the authority of the Court of Appeal and safeguard the credibility of the judicial process.
The outcome of this appeal has the potential to have significant ramifications not only for the future of Morupisi’s case but also for the broader judicial landscape in Botswana. The Court of Appeal’s decision will likely set a critical precedent in terms of the jurisdictional boundaries of the High Court and the standards of impartiality expected from judges overseeing sensitive cases.
