Botswana: authorities must uphold independence of judiciary in impending impeachment proceedings against four judges

Botswana: authorities must uphold independence of judiciary in impending impeachment proceedings against four judges

The ICJ expresses its deep concern at recent developments in Botswana in respect of impeachment proceedings initiated against four judges and their suspension from office pending a disciplinary hearing.

The four judges, constituting one-third of the 12 Member High Court of Botswana, Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe, were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.

The ICJ calls on all involved judicial and executive authorities to scrupulously respect the principles governing the independence of the judiciary in their conduct in addressing this serious situation, including in their actions throughout the course of any impeachment and disciplinary proceedings.

On 28 August 2015, the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, suspended the four judges after they, along with the other eight members of the Court, signed a petition directed to the Chief Justice.

The petition had objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.

The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.

The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.

On the 4th of September 2015, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) issued a statement in which it condemned the actions taken by the Chief Justice and President against the four judges.

The LSB considered that the case ought to have been resolved administratively rather than through what it said was “selective” impeachment of only four out of the 12 judges, particularly as no prima facie evidence existed that a crime had been committed.

The LSB alleged that “the selective approach in suspending and subjecting to a Tribunal only four (4) of the twelve (12) Judges who had signed the Petition, supported the widely held view that the action was a witch-hunt intended to remove certain Judges and ensure a more Executive Minded Bench.”

On the 23rd of September 2015, the LSB issued another statement following reports that three of the 12 judges had withdrawn their signatures to the petition after the judges had been “offered an ‘amnesty’ against any possible action being taken against them if they retract their association and / or apologise”.

The LSB went on to criticize an amnesty “made only to a select few of the Judges and not all” the 12 judges who signed the petition.

On 24 September 2015, the LSB issued a further statement calling on the Chief Justice to resign or face impeachment after the JSC offered amnesty to three other judges, who had signed or associated themselves with the petition.

The amnesty extended to any possible action being taken against them if they retracted their association and / or apologized. The offer of amnesty was not made to all 12 judges that had signed the petition, and in particular, it was not made to the four suspended judges.

On 28 September 2015, the Impeachment tribunal was to have commenced hearing of the matter, but the four concerned judges instituted litigation against appointment of the Tribunal and their suspension, which litigation is still pending.

Since then, the courts have been irregularly issuing instructions, contrary to proper procedure, through the Registrar of the High Court in the pending litigation, and given that the Registrar is party to the litigation, this creates an inherent conflict of interest.

These developments surrounding this case have raised serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary generally but more specifically the prospects for an independent, impartial and fair hearing for the suspended judges.

Read mor

botswana-impeachment-judges-news-web-stories-2016-eng (full text in PDF)

Zimbabwe: ICJ convened 2-day workshop on Business and Human Rights for East and Southern African lawyers

Zimbabwe: ICJ convened 2-day workshop on Business and Human Rights for East and Southern African lawyers

The workshop took place from 22-24 June in Victoria Falls and had a special focus on children’s rights as a particularly vulnerable group.

Its primary objective was to create a pool of jurists and activists with the knowledge and ability to undertake strategic litigation before national or regional courts in the interest of victims of human rights abuse by business enterprises in the Southern/Eastern Africa region.

To this end the meeting brought together legal practitioners and Human Rights Defenders involved in human rights legal accountability of business enterprises.

This workshop gathered together a selected group of human rights advocates from Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania working on cases relating to business’ human rights abuse.

In East and Southern African countries mining represents a significant part of the national economies and annual GDP.

Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, South Africa, Botswana and Mozambique have seen the inflowing investments grow in recent years, but it is not clear that this trend has meant improvements in the realization of human rights, especially economic and social rights.

Child labour is endemic, and its occurrence in tobacco plantations subject children to additional hazards to their health and wellbeing.

Mining and oil exploration creates problems to local communities who are not properly consulted or benefit from the activity and usually bear the brunt of environmental degradation and pollution associated with those extractive industries.

Business enterprises are in many instances complicit with State’s violations of human rights.

The meeting also sought to provide legal and other tools to community representatives and litigators who want to start strategic litigation in the public interest.

This flows from the realisation that effective remedy and reparation for victims of business human rights abuses, especially in a transnational context, remains elusive as ever and confronts a series of legal and procedural obstacles.

Access to effective remedy and justice is a priority objective in the context of work relating to the human rights responsibilities of business enterprises.

Translate »