Recusals in Swaziland and Lesotho: cause for concern?

22 February 2019 · Carmel Rickard

RECUSAL of judges – when they should stand down, when not and if judges are always properly deciding whether to hear a case – has emerged as a serious issue in both Lesotho and Swaziland. In both those jurisdictions, decisions about recusal have left litigants worried that, with no judges available to hear their matters, they could have no access to justice.

SEVERAL cases in Swaziland have come to a halt over the last weeks because judges have recused themselves. Their decisions raise the questions whether they were correct to do so in the circumstances, and how litigation can proceed when judicial officers decline to hear a matter.

Without a written judgment on recusal decisions it is not easy to know whether the thinking measures up to constitutional standards, but in at least one case, the judges concerned are to be formally asked for reasons in writing.

Two of four recent cases involving recusal of judges in Swaziland concern attorneys barred by the Chief Justice, Bheki Maphalala, from appearing in court. In one case the attorney concerned asked for an inquiry into the Chief Justice’s behaviour, but when his application on the issue was called, the three judges slated to preside in the matter recused themselves. They said they could not hear the case as it involved the Chief Justice, and then left the courtroom. The second attorney affected by a “ban” from the Chief Justice had a similar experience when he approached a single judge about the issue only to have the judge recuse himself again saying this was because the Chief Justice was involved.

Another case concerns a high court registrar, transferred to the magistracy by the Chief Justice. When the registrar tried to challenge the “transfer” in the industrial court, claiming there had been no consultation, the judge due to hear the matter recused himself.

A fourth case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of two contentious sedition and terrorism laws. In the high court the laws were declared unconstitutional by two judges to one. The government then appealed. Shortly before it was to be heard by five judges of the supreme court, the Chief Justice told members of the legal teams that the case could not go ahead as scheduled because some of the judges had recused themselves. A new date is now being negotiated.

Swazi human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko said the problem was not just about judges who refused to sit in matters but also about judges who refused to recuse themselves when it appeared obvious that they should not preside. “I think there is a rule of law crisis about the judiciary over the issue of recusal.”

He and other lawyers practicing in Swaziland said it seemed the problem of recusal was most acute when it involved a challenge to decisions of the Chief Justice.

The question of what happens where no judge is prepared to hear matters is complicated by the constitutional bar on non-Swazi citizens sitting on the bench. Since asking foreign judges to act is not an option, the search for a solution narrows: either local lawyers must be appointed as acting judges to hear these matters, or suitably qualified Swazi citizens working outside the country could be asked to return and preside in an acting capacity. Judge Thomas Masuku comes to mind. Formerly of the Swazi bench, he was fired by the previous chief justice and now works in Namibia where he has won awards for outstanding judicial achievement.

In Lesotho, meanwhile, another intriguing recusal matter has been playing out, this time involving all the mountain kingdom’s high court judges.

Ten high court interpreters have been engaged in a dispute about salary upgrades and back pay. They have initiated action against the ministries of justice and of public service over their increases, but before the main matter was heard their legal team successfully argued that all the country’s high court judges should recuse themselves from hearing the case.

According to the acting judge, Moroke Mokhesi, who has since taken over the case, the judges’ recusal was sought because in a judges’ meeting derogatory remarks were made about interpreters and “delinquent behaviour” with comments to the effect that there were serious doubts about their “qualifications and/or competence and commitment.”

In December 2017 the judge then hearing the matter ruled in favour of the submission by counsel for the interpreters that no local high court judge should preside. The case thus came to a dead end and for some time nothing further happened. The interpreters said they were promised that a foreign judge would hear the case – and then acting judge Mokhesi stepped in.

“It would seem that this case had been languishing in this court without any progress primarily due to the unavailability of a judge to preside over it,” he said. “When I was engaged on an acting role from the beginning of February 2018 this is one of the matters which was allocated to me.”

After he set down the case for hearing the interpreters’ legal representative said they had instructions to ask that the acting judge also recuse himself. Judge Mokhesi directed that a formal application should be brought. On the day it was called, with both legal teams in court, he asked for clarity on the identity of one of those involved. He said that if the person named was the same person he knew of that name, he would indeed recuse himself: they had worked closely together and she had been his interpreter for more than 10 years.

He asked counsel to establish whether she was still involved in the litigation, since he (the judge) knew that she had been promoted and now held “a substantive position” with the Master of the High Court. Court adjourned for him to do so, and a few minutes later counsel returned and confirmed that the woman was still an interested party in the case.

Given that information, Judge Mokhesi recused himself. But he later spoke to the woman herself and it emerged that, contrary to what the judge was told in court, she had not been contacted by counsel. She also said that she was no longer interested in the case at all.

The judge then called counsel back and asked for an explanation. He was told that the client had informed counsel that the woman was still involved, and counsel apologized for misleading the court.

The judge thus set aside his earlier decision to recuse himself and proceeded to deliver judgment confirming that he will hear the matter. He said that evidence in court made it clear that the applicants wanted him to recuse himself because of statements made by other people at meetings he did not attend. He quoted from precedent-setting judgments that judges “have a duty to sit in any case where they are not obliged to recuse themselves”.

With that decision not to recuse himself, the interpreters’ case should now at long last begin. The matters in Swaziland, however, appear more intractable – and it is open to doubt whether the authorities there are particularly keen to find a way forward that will allow all these cases to be heard.

Tsela v Principal Secretary Ministry of Justice (CIV/T/53/15) [2018] LSHC 10 (28 June 2018);

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.