Many people of goodwill will be happy to learn that Judges have agreed to resolve the differences between them amicably than through the courts.
The incident of having a judge presiding over a matter of two colleagues does not always sit well.
Any presiding judge was immediately sucked into the divisions.
We saw that play out immediately Justice Radijeng presided on the matter between two judges..
Doubts were created by the other side that Judge Radijeng was not appropriately detached enough to be trusted with the matter.
Of course it has happened several times before, that a dispute between judges is presided over by another judge.
But the recent differences between Judge Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe and Chief Justice Terrence Rannowane were just too deep and potentially very untidy.
The differences were potentially divisive.
If allowed to simmer for longer, it would deeply polarize the judiciary into camps and factions.
Reaching a peace settlement by the concerned was highly welcome.
There will be no washing of the dirty linen in public, even though a great damage has already been done by the documents that were leaked.
For some in the media, and indeed other litigants like former President Ian Khama, nothing was more welcome than an admission by the Chief Justice that evidence and affidavits in the “Butterfly case” were fabricated.
Sadly it would seem like the détente does not extend to other cases.
It would seem like a case in which Justice Gabriel Komboni is challenging his transfer to Maun is still on.
While we welcome the settlement between the judges, we still are adamant that there is need for a judicial review.
Allegations that were made are too serious and doubts will persist that somehow our judiciary is rigged.
Those in charge should make reforms that will bring back trust.
If the state is able to fabricate such serious staff as to allege that P100 billion has been stolen by such powerful people like a former president then we should be worried.
So how do we bring back trust.
It has to start with the way judges are appointed.
The current system of appointing judges is fraught with defects.
It gives the president too much power.
That power should be reduced.
It might also be prudent to look at the years a person can stay on as chief justice.
Right now a person can stay on a chief justice until they reach retirement age.
A way to look at it might be to say after ten years of service, the chief justice would retire.
A call for judicial reforms should be looked at as calls for attacks on anyone.
Too many things have happened in the recent past that have really increased doubts.
Kgosi Mosadi Seboko of Balete also shocked the nation with her irrefutable story that she was called for a meeting with the president at a time when she was at the courts against government over a valuable chunk of land belonging to her tribe that government wanted to take away.
The subject matter of the meeting, according to Kgosi Mosadi was exactly that case.
The president later tried to deny but it was clear he was clutching at the straws.
But that too is yet another incident that has pushed over the line calls for judicial reform.
Balete went on to win the case. And the president said it was evidence he had not tried to rig it.
Far from it.
There is still a solid case for reforms of the judiciary.
