The dispute over who gets to enter the legal profession and on what terms has concluded with the High Court delivering a judgment that leaves both sides with little immediate satisfaction.
On Tuesday, Justice Godfrey Nthomiwa dismissed an application brought by 21 students seeking to overturn a decision by the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) that barred them from sitting the June 2026 Bar Examinations. The students, graduates of a law programme offered by Gaborone University College of Law (GUC) in collaboration with Leeds Beckett University, had argued that the Law Society’s refusal was unlawful, irrational and procedurally unfair.
The case unfolded against a backdrop of anxiety and frustration. According to the judgment, the students were informed less than a month before the examinations that they would not be permitted to write. The examinations were scheduled for late June, and the students argued that exclusion would cost them a year of professional advancement, employment opportunities and admission into legal practice.
Justice Nthomiwa said motion proceedings are designed to resolve legal disputes based on facts that are largely common cause. Where serious factual disagreements emerge, courts are generally reluctant to make definitive findings based solely on competing affidavits.
The Law Society maintained that its decision was not directed at the students personally but stemmed from its statutory obligation to ensure that candidates entering the profession satisfy the requirements of Botswana’s Legal Practitioners Act. Central to the dispute were concerns surrounding the qualification relied upon by the students and questions about the academic programme through which it was obtained. The court stopped short of deciding whether the Law Society’s decision was lawful. Instead, it concluded that the matter could not properly be determined on affidavit evidence because substantial disputes of fact remained unresolved.
Among those disputes were allegations and counter-allegations concerning a Botswana Qualifications Authority audit report, the governance and quality assurance of the GUC-Leeds Beckett programme, and the information available to the various parties. The students denied knowledge of some of the concerns raised against the programme, while the Law Society argued that crucial evidence lay with regulators and educational institutions rather than with the applicants themselves.
Justice Nthomiwa said motion proceedings are designed to resolve legal disputes based on facts that are largely common cause. Where serious factual disagreements emerge, courts are generally reluctant to make definitive findings based solely on competing affidavits. The judge found that the disagreements in this case were “real, genuine and material,” making it inappropriate to decide the review application on the papers before the court. In the final order, the court held that while the matter was “marginally urgent,” the disputes surrounding the existence and contents of a Botswana Qualifications Authority audit report, as well as the challenge to the Law Society’s decision, could not be resolved on the affidavits filed. The court therefore dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to pay costs.
