AG’s facing a ‘ crisis of confidence’

Deputy Govt. Attorney Charles Gulubase says they withdrew mandate of private attorney Mpho Letsoalo in the Kebonang brothers’ case after assessing his competency Judge Michael Leburu rejects application to have the case postponed

Efforts by the state to successfully prosecute and defend the National Petroleum Fund ( NPF) case seem to be a pain to the government prosecuting agencies.

Last week Deputy Government attorney from Attorney General Chambers Charles Gulubane revealed that the state decided to dump its private attorney Mpho Letsoalo just a few days after the High Court cleared Sadique Kebonang and Zein Kebonang from the NPF case.

Just like in the Kebonang brothers’ case, Letsoalo has been appointed to represent the state in a case in which former Director General of Directorate of Intelligence and Security ( DIS) Isaac Kgosi wants money laundering charges against him in the NPF case dropped.

Gulubane had indicated that the decision to terminate the agreement was due to crisis of confidence on the part of the Attorney General in the manner that the Kebonang brothers’ matter was handled. He contended that the mandate was withdrawn after assessment of the competency of the attorney engaged.

“There are matters of law that need to be ventilated and we believe can be done by other attorney of client’s choice. Subject to this is a right to representation. The right is of course not absolute.

“We had a meeting after the Kebonang judgement. There was crisis of confidence which client could not justify further involvement of the attorney. The issue came to fore less than four days ago,” explained Gulubane.

Attorney Unoda Mack representing Isaac Kgosi had submitted that it is in the interest of justice that matters should be disposed off within a reasonable time particularly where the liberty and fundamental rights of an individual are at stake.

He argued that non availability of an attorney is not good and sufficient ground upon which the application maybe founded upon.

Justice Michael Leburu had indicated that to the extent that the Respondents ( Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecution) are prevented by

Rule 9 of the High Court from changing attorneys, it means the application for postponement, which is primarily anchored on the withdrawal of an attorney’s mandate is not sustainable.

“In casu, it is common cause that the Respondents have only given one ( 1) day written notice to change attorney contrary to the dictates of Rule 9 cited supra; which prescribes five ( 5) court days. “On this ground alone, the Respondents’ request to change an attorney is palpably vulnerable and doomed to fail. On the need to file a response to the supplementary heads filed by the Applicant, in my view, such a reason is merely a ruse to obtain a postponement.

“On the right to legal representation by an attorney of one’s choice, such a right is not absolute. It is relative to the imperatives obtaining in each particular case, and in casu Order 4 Rule 9 is singularly dispositive,” said Justice Leburu who refused the application to have the case postponed.