The Gaborone High Court has reserved its judgment for January 3, 2025, in the case where former Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) Carter Morupisi is challenging the constitutionality of his seven-year prison sentence handed down by the Court of Appeal (CoA). The court will determine whether it has the authority to overturn a decision made by the CoA.

Morupisi’s lawyer Obonye Jonas, argues that a statement made by Justice Dr. Singh Walia during the CoA proceedings undermined judicial independence. Jonas contended that the statement suggested the judiciary was obligated to align with the Executive’s desire to combat corruption, thereby compromising the separation of powers. “Should we not take heed of that since the Executive or the President is the appointing authority of judges?” Jonas asked, alleging that Walia’s remarks were an attempt to curry favor for a contract extension.

The Attorney General (AG), however, countered these claims, arguing that the statement in question was being exaggerated and did not influence the CoA’s final decision. The AG maintained that Botswana’s Constitution clearly outlines the hierarchy of courts and that no lower court, including the High Court, has the authority to overturn a decision made by a higher court. “The real question is whether it is even competent to bring this matter to the court,” the AG stated.

Justice Dr. Zein Kebonang, who is part of the panel hearing the matter, declined to recuse himself following a recusal application by the AG. The AG’s application was based on allegations that Justice Kebonang’s twin brother, Saadique Kebonang, had previous financial dealings with Capital Management Botswana (CMB), the firm implicated in Morupisi’s corruption charges. Justice Kebonang dismissed the application, stating that the allegations were insufficient grounds for recusal and emphasizing his independence from his brother’s affairs.

The prosecution has firmly rejected Jonas’s assertion that Justice Walia’s statement was an attempt to seduce the President, arguing instead that it was a mere ceremonial reference to the President’s role in judicial appointments. “Judges are independent and not influenced by the Executive,” the prosecution stated. They further emphasized that references to the President’s anti-corruption stance during sentencing had no bearing on the CoA’s decision.

Jonas argued that Morupisi’s rights under the Bill of Rights were directly engaged, as he is entitled to a fair trial and sentencing by an impartial court. He also alleged that the judiciary’s independence had been compromised by external political influences.

The prosecution refuted these claims, stressing that the courts are creatures of statute and are bound by the rule of law. “Reference to the President’s statement by Walia in the sentencing has nothing to do with the outcome of the CoA,” the prosecution argued.

Morupisi’s legal troubles began in 2022 when he appealed a non-custodial sentence handed down by Justice Chris Gabanagae, only to have the CoA increase his punishment to seven years of imprisonment.