Developments at the judiciary have been met by a rare quietness.
It happened when a High Court Judge recently said the Chief Justice and a cabinet minister had tried to influence him in a case that involved Thapelo Matsheka – a former cabinet minister and also Member of Parliament for Lobatse who had been incarcerated for the murder of one Tlotso Karema; a case that has since mysteriously run aground.
The same quietness happened again last week when Kgosi Mosadi Seboko of Balete said the President of the Republic had called her for a meeting and broke to her some bizarre news about him having instructed the Court of Appeal to rule in favour of the State. And that following that he would give the land in dispute to Balete.
The president has not denied meeting Kgosi Mosadi.
Instead he has vaguely said that he remains wedded to the rule of law.
His response was veiled with thin confrontation. But also deliberate evasion.
Like every politician when challenged his instincts reach for a counter-attack.
The fact that any meeting happened at all raises questions around the spectacle of judicial impartiality.
The fact that there a case that is before the courts was mentioned at all – even in passing – risks compromising that impartiality.
Now with the president not just directly involved, but also accused, he has been robbed of an opportunity to intervene in the ensuing mess from a position of strength.
When it comes to the judiciary, the special magic often associated with his office is gone.
A High Court Judge has written to the president asking him to intervene by way of setting up a tribunal to determine if Chief Justice Rannowane can continue holding office.
That was before the president was himself accused of his own dealings involving the judiciary.
Going forward few people will trust him to intervene from a position of pure disinterest and detachment.
An impression has been created that the rot has now become pervasive.
This week it was the turn of former president Ian Khama to deliver a body blow.
This is a man who likes creating lasting impressions.
And he did not disappoint.
In the recent years since he left office, Ian Khama has had a long running feud with government, punctuated by heavy litigations against the state.
Just as his cases were going before the Court of Appeal, Khama dropped a bombshell.
He instructed his lawyers to withdraw, because as he put he does not want to honour a fixture of a game the outcome of which has been predetermined.
Critics will say he is playing to the gallery. That may be so.
But his behavior leaves little doubt that he takes absolute delight in cutting through all pretense.
If there was going to be any collusion between the state and any judge, it will have to be against Ian Khama.
He has been a real trouble for the state and for President Mokgweetsi Masisi in particular.
People will say Khama’s action is not sincere but calculated for maximum public impact.
Whatever people say, the judiciary is under siege.
Khama want the Court president of the Court of Appeal to find neutral judges that are not tainted by any of the allegations made against the judiciary.
That’s a big ask.
Prevailing on any judge not to sit on any case involving the state is like telling them to retire.
None of them will accept it.
Our judges want the best of both worlds.
They want the trappings of being a judge. But they hate the detachment that come with it.
They marvel at the power their tittles bring, including the power to ruin lives but cannot bring themselves to live the boring life of a judge.
The way the State behaved following a court ruling when director general at DCEC Tymon Katholo took the state to court has left many people wondering just where Botswana is headed.
Trust has left through the window.
And Khama has opted to deliver his body blow at a time when the judiciary is at its weakest.
At this point, for Khama it is much more important to make a broad political statement than to win a case.
Very soon the reputational damage that Botswana’s judiciary is suffering will reach international waters.
That happened in Zimbabwe during the time of Robert Mugabe.
The public silence against all the all the allegations is almost sinister. There is an airy feeling of defeat about that silence. People are shellshocked.
Will the judiciary recover? Or as in everything else we will count on the short memories that our people famously have?
It is now almost impossible to defend the judiciary.
There used to be a time when people were sad to lose cases but still had all trust in the court processes.
That is now history.
People are now searching for motives of the presiding judges.
More than a failure of those in power, it is manifestly our failure as a nation.
Once again we have failed as a country and people.
But this time the failure will be felt all the most because the judiciary was meant to be our last line of defence.
