Author: Katlo Rabasaka
In a functioning democracy,courts are meant to be sanctuaries of justice ,measured not by how quickly they clear dockets but by how fairly cases are solved and rights are upheld.However, in Botswana today,a troubling tension has emerged, an urgent push to clear backlogs risks making closure an end subsequently undermining the essence of justice.
Botswana’s judiciary has been blunt about this problem. The accumulation of criminal cases,especially in high courts delay justice and out immense strain on the legal system. By late 2025,the disposal rate of criminal cases at the high court sat at 35%.behind these percentages Aee grieving. Families and accused individuals deteriorating in remand.
In Botswana, procedural tools such as plea bargaining have helped ease the congestion. However,these encourage quick resolutions at the expense of careful consideration. Accused persons especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds may plead guilty not because they are culpable,but to avoid prolonged pre trial detention or the cost of legal representation. In such cases,closure is achieved but justice remains questionable.
Another concern is the quality of judgments. An increased emphasis on disposing of matters quickly can result in brief rulings that subsequently ignore important evidence or legal principles. This not only affects the immediate parties but also weakens Botswana’s jurisprudence which needs clear and thoughtful ruling to set a good example for future trials.
Section 10 of the Constitution of Botswana guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. However, “reasonable time” must not be interpreted as a mandate for haste. A fair hearing implies a meaningful engagement with the merits of the case. If courts prioritize outcomes,the citizens rights to a fair trial are effectively violated.
Ultimately, public confidence in Botswana’s legal system depends not on how quickly cases disappear from the roll, but on whether outcomes are perceived as fair and reasoned. Closure is important, but justice is crucial.When the two are in tension, the courts must remember which one gives their authority meaning.
A judgment that ends a case is not automatically a judgment that serves justice. Finality should be the result of careful reasoning, not a substitute for it.
The Current Connect Student Club 