In his epic novel, Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien portrays ‘shadow’ as a void of nothingness that swallows whoever falls into it with no prospects of their return but by miracle. In this piece the author shall demonstrate how the office of the Attorney General of Botswana has, through time and memorable national events, lost its most needed credibility and can never under any circumstances have a resounding return unless it rebrands itself in the mind of the ordinary Motswana and returns to the glory that it should have.
The Republic of Botswana, like any civilised country of the world, has the office of the Attorney General; it being the nature of the office that it is a public one. With its obvious function being to advise the government and defend on its behalf any litigation that may be brought against the government or against any officer therein who may be pursued by any person in litigation for anything done by him in an official capacity or represent government in any suit that may be brought by government itself.
The office of the Attorney General is created under the Constitution per Section 51 of that document; it provides in brief that there shall be an Attorney-General appointed by the President whose office shall be a public office. The notable function of the Attorney General amongst others which are found in any written law is stated by the Constitution in the following verbatim words, “The Attorney-General shall be the principal legal adviser to the Government.”
Needless to say, such an office must be insulated from partisan politics, personalisation, nepotism, favoritism, fraud, kinship vices and above all from any sort of bias. That should it fail this test then it will have to fight the daunting battle to regain its credibility.
Many voices have so far spoken and voiced their sense of disquiet and vetting out their dissatisfaction on how the Attorney General has been lipped on many issues that warrant her comment. The main one being amongst other things the much contended issue of the appointment of Collins Newman and Company as the main representatives of the government in the ‘strike case’, the bill which they are to be paid, the reasons why they were engaged, the authority typifying their appointment, the extent of the power conferred upon them by the supposed authority and her accountability to the public in these matters of public concern involving above all things the taxpayer’s funds.
The other being the issue of the newly created office of General Counsel whose creation, according to some (including the author), has totally usurped the mandate of the Attorney General.
The indefinitely acting Minister of Justice Defence and Security’s remarks that the Law firm of Collins Newman & Company is very experienced in Labour matters.
THE ATTORNEY General and or any officer subordinate employed by her is to be accorded the integrity they deserve either in their individual capacity or collectively as a unit.
It beats the mind how an officer (the Attorney General) who boasts such a wide pool of experienced lawyers can have such denigrating comments leveled against her by politicians.
These politicians come to the forefront and purport to answer questions that do not only touch to the core of office of the Attorney General but very sensitive issues which by so claiming to answer are drawing the esteemed office into the political arena; they drag the office of the Attorney General kicking and screaming into the unholy terrain of politics thus bringing much doubt into the mind of the public if at all the office still remains apolitical and free from interference by politicians. But where is the Attorney General herself when such key matters about her office are being brought into question? Has she now left her high seat and ceded her rights to answer to another? Some of us perhaps owing to our knowledge in the intricate workings of law practice were left wondering as to why the Attorney General would; in disregard of its own staff engage a private law firm in so serious a matter of national importance. We hoped she would one of these days descend the stairs of Attorney General’s Chambers and say a word. We waited but in vain.
POLITICIANS are to never claim knowledge of the intricate workings of an office of so specialised a nature. They must be rebuked for claiming that they do. It is only the Attorney General herself that should step up to the pedestal and tell us how the private law firm was appointed and the amount of tax payer that is to be expended in settling the costs of engaging the said firm. These matters are of public interest. The words of the BDP politicians are only intended to try and salvage their already plummeted reputation as a government and seek voter approval. Their words are suspect and must be seriously ignored. It is not them that handle the files; they did not sign the Power of Attorney if there is any. Their silence would have served us all better.
A few weeks after the former Assistant Attorney General Mr. Keetshabe tendered his resignation and later withdrew it there was news that he has since been appointed to the newly established office of General Counsel. These rumors were confirmed by virtue of a publication in the Gazette and other government memos. It would appear that in so appointing him the President was acting in pursuance of Section 47 of the Constitution which empowers him to take any decision and act in his or her own deliberate judgment where he shall not be obliged to follow the advice tendered by any other person or authority. For the avoidance of doubt; Keetshabe was appointed by the President acting in his own deliberate judgment.
But one is left only wondering what the raison d’itere of the office, simply put, its nature and function is to be and whether it has not brought to an end the constitutionally protected sway that the Attorney General heretofore had in government as the sole advisor and litigator for government. How was Section 47 harmonised with Section 51 which creates the office of the Attorney General and clothes her with the absolute mandate of having charge of all government’s legal issues.
One would be surprised in noting that the term ‘General Counsel’ is used in other jurisdiction to refer to an office equivalent or akin to that of our Attorney General here in Botswana. Is this appointment not an infraction into the office of the Attorney General and her functions? Is it not a sly usurpation of all that the Attorney General used to do before the said appointment? We all but wonder. All PR from government enclave did not even cast in broad strokes why an office of such a nature was created when the Attorney General was present to do all that was suggested by Dr. Ramsay that the General Counsel is to do.
Those of clear recollection may well remember how an office of such a similar nature during the Mogae era brought deep seated problems when the then advisor Advocate Pilane was engaged by the regime then to defend the case by Roy Sesana and others against government. Many voices then voiced out worry as to why the president’s personal choice is on the forefront of the case as opposed to the Attorney General. History, it has been stated over and over again tends to repeat itself. It won’t be long ‘til conflicts akin to the above rock the boat of governmental legal action.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL is not concerned in the very least with allaying the fears of the public by explaining to them the law and how it has not been breached by her client the government in appointing Mr. Keetshabe to a new office with a salary and perks similar to hers. Her voice is no longer remembered and it would appear that she has now fallen by the wayside. The Attorney General ought to not lose sight that hers is not a private but public office. The entire peopling of Botswana look to her in confidence as the legal not political or moral voice of the government; that she tell them what the law provides in these national issues and assure them that the decisions taken in whatever regard are properly justified at a law. This is definitive of other Attorney Generals of other mature democracies of the world who in appreciation of the nature of their office are quick to allay the public’s fears when it is of the apprehension that a certain law has breached by the government. Here in Botswana, the Attorney General is seen only at the opening of the legal year pouring cold water on senior private practitioners for certain conduct that she deems improper also attacking and chastising the Press for what she calls rumor mongering and peddling untruths.
I would not commit this piece however to other issues concerning the serial and indiscriminate departure of an unprecedented number of employees of the Attorney Generals Chambers which has left a gulf in the Chambers and the glaring failure of the Attorney General intandem with DPSM in recommending that the latter fill up the positions at the chambers which now fall vacant. These too though I so easily gloss over them need the urgent answer of the Attorney General and what she is doing to address these matters her silence is truly deafening.
IN the summation of things; these questions that arise for determination are not mere fly-by-night questions, they go to the credibility, the competence and the relevance of the office of the Attorney General in contemporary and fast changing Botswana. Her silence is not only a perturbing sign but gives the impression that she has been sidelined or that she lacks the competence to hold the fort and the capacity to answer questions that concern her office and the nation. We, after weighing these competing factors have since formed the opinion and are of the considered view that she like Gandaff of Lord of the Rings has fallen into shadow and shall be seen no more or heard no more but by miracle.
