PREDICTABLE JUSTICE Botswana’s courts face a trust deficit as citizens successfully predict verdicts
The recently released Afrobarometer report, Social Cohesion in Africa: Bonds, Belonging and the Common Good has laid bare a troubling reality across the continent including Botswana: Africans have trust issues. The report ranks Botswana among the least trusting societies in Africa despite high tolerance for diversity.
Although the report which was released on September 3 also covers interpersonal trust where individuals showed little trust in their families, employers and colleagues at work, more than half of respondents were shown to believe judges are untrustworthy as they are influenced by powerful interests, including chiefly, politicians. Nearly six in ten say unequal treatment under the law is common.
Botswana, often praised for its democratic credentials, is not spared as the report shows a significant number of those involved in the survey also shared the concerns about the judiciary.
In fact, here in Botswana, the findings resonate with lived experience, where citizens have always openly claimed they can predict court verdicts simply by knowing which judge is presiding and which politician is involved.
One of the most telling examples came in 2023 when the then opposition Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) challenged the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) over voter registration monitoring. The case was heard in Francistown by Judge Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe. From the moment the matter was shifted away from Gaborone, speculation swirled. Citizens questioned the motive, suggesting the choice of venue and judge was strategic. At the time, many shared that it was an intelligent move by the UDC as Ketlogetswe was well-known to be a long-time BNF activist, having even led the University of Botswana SRC under the banner of BNF-Mass.
As was already expected by many, Ketlogetswe ruled in favour of the UDC, granting them permission to observe registration. Though the Court of Appeal later overturned his ruling, the perception of bias lingered, giving credence to the current findings of Afrobarometer. When the UDC came to power, President Duma Boko wasted no time and appointed Ketlogetswe Chief Justice, prompting a chorus of “we told you so” from the public.
In another case where citizens showed no trust in the judiciary, after the 2019 general election, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) mounted a legal challenge against the declared results, alleging irregularities and seeking to overturn the Botswana Democratic Party’s victory. The case was one of the most closely watched in the country’s democratic history, but from the outset, many Batswana expressed scepticism. The prevailing sentiment was that the courts would never rule against the ruling party, regardless of the evidence presented. As the hearings unfolded, citizens openly predicted that the UDC would not succeed, citing the entrenched perception that judges were aligned with the political establishment. When the High Court eventually dismissed the petition, the outcome was met not with shock but with resignation, reinforcing the belief that justice in Botswana is predictable when ruling politicians are involved. The matter was made worse by the fact that of the five Judges in that case, only Justice Ketlogetswe differed with the rest of the panel, prompting many to suggest that the other judges were aligned to the ruling party since Ketlogetswe’s allegiances were already widely known. This episode, layered onto Afrobarometer’s findings that Batswana harbour deep trust issues with institutions, highlighted the widening gap between the promise of impartial justice and the reality of political influence.
Again, former President Ian Khama’s legal battles also fed suspicions of judicial partiality. When cases linked to the discredited P100 billion scandal landed before Judge Zein Kebonang, many predicted favourable outcomes for Khama. Kebonang dismissed charges against Khama’s associates, ruling that the allegations were fabricated and the evidence manipulated. Public opinion held that Kebonang’s perceived closeness to Khama, and his rivalry with President Masisi and the BDP, made impartiality impossible. The sense that outcomes were predetermined by political alignments only deepened the trust deficit.
President Boko himself has been a central figure in this narrative. Long before assuming office, he repeatedly attacked the judiciary, accusing judges of shielding the ruling elites and undermining democracy. His rhetoric painted the courts as compromised, a view that resonated with opposition supporters who felt justice was tilted against them. After becoming president, Boko did not soften his stance as for some time after assuming state presidency, he repeatedly bashed the judiciary over a plethora of issues. He even pushed for sweeping reforms, including the creation of a Constitutional Court. While he framed these changes as necessary to strengthen independence, critics saw them as attempts to consolidate influence over the judiciary.
These episodes illustrate a paradox. Botswana’s citizens are tolerant of diversity, as Afrobarometer notes, yet they are deeply sceptical of institutions meant to guarantee fairness. The judiciary, once a pillar of democracy, is now viewed by many as a theatre where political loyalties dictate verdicts. Afrobarometer’s warning that perceptions of bias corrode the “common good” is vividly borne out in Botswana, where whispers of judicial partiality echo through every high-profile case.
The implications are profound. When citizens believe justice is predictable, trust in the courts erodes, hence the latest findings in the survey. Such sentiments can only have the effect of weakening social cohesion, undermining governance and fueling cynicism about the rule of law.
The country is thus left with the challenge of restoring faith in the judiciary, or risk a future where justice is not only questioned but dismissed outright. As President Boko continues to reshape the courts, the credibility of the system will determine whether Botswana’s democracy remains resilient or whether public trust collapses under the weight of predictable justice.
