08 Dec 2019

A panel of three judges assigned nine of the 30 election petitions cases at the Gaborone High Court has set January 8, 2020, as the date for case management conference. 

Justice Itumeleng Segopolo on December 6 said the conference would analyse the filed material relevant cases and ultimately inform the possible dates for trials. The panel consists of Ketlogetswe Gaopalelwe, Itumeleng Segopolo and Omphemetse Motumise.

The decision was taken after the lengthy debate as counsels and the judges were having difficulties in drafting a schedule to be followed in dealing with the election results petitions. 

After meeting a consensus, it was resolved that the respondents would file their answering affidavits on December 5 , while the petitioners would file their replying affidavits on December 19. 

Filling and serving of witnesses in all the nine cases was scheduled for December 23. 

The judges had repeatedly reminded the petitioners and respondent attorneys of the urgency that must be accorded the petitions as the Electoral Act was binding that they must be concluded within 90 days. 

Judge Motumise had stressed on the urgency of the matters, which he said forced the court to engage in a compressed schedule. 

“As we are not certain of the number of witnesses to be engaged, it is essential to start the trials earlier. If we stretch the dates we are likely to encounter challenges towards the end of the stipulated time frame,” said Justice Motumise. 

Judge Motumise also indicated that it would not be possible to consolidate the petitions, as they were lodged in solitary and therefore diverse, more so that they emanated from different locations across the country. 

“Some are for parliamentary candidates while others are from council candidates,” he said. 

He also added that the petition would follow the sequence in which they were registered.

Justice Ketlogetswe also stressed the need to do away with all the preliminary issues of the cases before the end of the year. 

“The Electoral Act states that the petitions be treated as stand-alone cases and be concluded within 90 days,” he said, urging the counsels to commit to the schedule. 

 He also reminded that the Electoral Act does not allow for the petitions to be consolidated. 

“Since you have failed to agree on the schedule, the court will decide the dates on your behalf and therefore you must comply,” said Judge Ketlogetswe. 

Justice Segopolo, therefore, said the petitions must be concluded by the second week of March 2020.  

Other than drafting a schedule for the petition of trials, the court also convened to give an update on the issue of Justice Segopolo’s recusal from two of the petition cases in which his personal friend, President Dr Mokgweetsi Masisi was being implicated. 

In giving an update of the two petitions lodged by Dr Micus Chimbombi and Mr Olebogeng Watshipi, who were the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) parliamentary candidates at Kgalagadi South and Lentsweletau/Mmopane respectively, Justice Segopolo said the issue had been resolved as the petitions in question were re-assigned to another panel of judges. 

Meanwhile, two election results petitions have been withdrawn. 

Mr Reginald Kadiwa, who was appearing in person withdrew his petition after informing the court that he had not yet served any of the respondents in the matter. 

Mr Kadiwa lost the Mahalapye Central council ward to Mr Joseph Tjienda of the BDP who was mentioned as the second respondent. 

The IEC was the second respondent while other contestants for the council seat being Ms Gabobowe Kaurandua and Ms Baareng Raphane were the third and fourth respondents respectively. 

The high court was also made aware of a notice of withdrawal from Mr Aron Sefho. 

Mr Dick Bayford, who was the lead attorney in the team of attorneys representing the petitioner said their client had moved to withdraw his petition as he failed to meet the requirements of the petition. 

Mr Bayford said the notice of withdrawal was filed in terms of section 131 of the Electoral Act. 

He said the petition was not properly grounded and therefore, saw the need to pull out. 

 In responding to the withdrawal of petitions, Attorney Otsile Rammidi, who was leading a team of attorneys representing the first respondent (IEC) observed that even though his client was not informed legally, he came across such notice of withdrawal from Mr Sefho from the court material.  

Attorney Basimane Bogopa and his team of attorneys representing the BDP candidates, who appeared as second respondents in the petitions, acknowledged the withdrawal even though their clients were never served.

The respondents’ attorney, therefore, concurred that as per section 134 of the Electoral Act, the withdrawing petitioners must incur costs of the court as they have been issued with petitions, filed their power of attorney and notice of opposition. 

Even though not in dispute of the fact that his client must incur costs, Mr Bayford pleaded for leniency on behalf of his client (Mr Sefho).

He noted that each respondent was represented by a group of attorneys and therefore his client should only incur costs for at least one attorney for each team.  ends