Masisi, CJ, Justice Segopolo accused of soiling judiciary
The Law Society of Botswana says failure by Justice Itumeleng Segopolo to wind up his law firm and failure by Chief Justice Terrence Rannowane and President Mokgweetsi Masisi to take action against the judge sets a bad precedence for the judiciary.
The LSB has stated in its intent to sue Notice that on or around the 10th August 2022 it wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission ( JSC) Justice Rannowane on the failure by Justice Segopolo to properly wind up his law firm Segopolo and Company upon his appointment to the bench in 2018.
According to the society, the letter was received on the 10th August 2022 but the LSB has neither been favoured with a substantive response nor an acknowledgment of receipt more than a month later.
The LSB explains that the importance of winding up a firm is to satisfy Council that proper provision has been made for the liquidation, taking over and protection of all trust money and to ensure that all obligations to clients have been discharged or duly assigned with such consents as may be necessary in terms of Regulation 34 of the Regulations of the Law Society which deals with practitioners who cease to practice and winding up of abandoned practices.
“The failure by Judge Segopolo to wind up Segopolo and Company despite advice from the claimant, failure also by the JSC to protect the integrity of the judiciary and assure members of the legal profession and those of the public that the rule of law is observed by appointing a tribunal, looking into Judge Segopolo’s conduct to determine whether he is fit and proper to continue holding office, including the enforcement of section 97 of the Constitution for the President to set up a tribunal to investigate this misbehaviour whilst on suspension, has run amok the very essence of what the Claimant stands for and what the Administration of Justice should be all about,” reads the notice.
The council has indicated that it will institute a suit against the President, Justice Rannowane, Justice Segopolo seeking an order that the President appoint a tribunal in terms of section 97 ( 3) of the Constitution to investigate the concerns and/ or complaint lodged on the 10th August 2022 as against Justice Segopolo; the President be directed to appoint the said tribunal within 30 days from the date of the order; and that the proceedings of the tribunal shall be open to the public and the result of the said investigation shall be published. The LSB argues that there has been no compliance by Justice Segopolo and the Council finds itself swamped with Justice Segopolo’s former clients who had either deposited money into his trust account for work that was not done or deposited money into the trust to be remitted to a third party.
“Other clients are looking for their files which would have been in the custody of the Claimant had a proper wind up been done, whilst some are even struggling to simply reach the Judge. It is common cause that some of these clients have approached the Chief Justice’s office and ultimately the Courts but still no logical conclusion has come to pass such that these complaints are definitively dealt with.
“The claimant has engaged Judge Segopolo on this matter and a back and forth engagement has proven futile and undesirable because a clear process of what must legally happen has been established which the judge has wilfully decided not to follow.
“It is on record that the Judge has said that funds belonging to a client are reserved in his trust account for costs and in terms of section 45 ( 1) it is only a legal practitioner who can open and keep a separate trust account in which he/ she deposits all moneys held or received by him/ her in connection with his practice in Botswana.”
According to the council, the Judge ought to have audited and closed his trust account upon appointment to the bench for the simple reason that he is no longer handling clients’ trust moneys and an audit would have ensured that these funds are directed back to his clients.
The Society says it has an obligation to uphold the standards of professional conduct but this it cannot directly do in so far as members of the bench are concerned, who are within the jurisdiction of the JSC.