MASERU – The Court of Appeal was asked to review its judgment on the declaration of the 9th Amendment unconstitutional. Advocate Motebang Ramaili who is a Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants in an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which it declared unconstitutional, the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, says the Court was wrong in reaching that conclusion.
In his arguments before the Court, he specified that it was material error for the court to bring around a cancelled law. He pointed out that the majority judgment of the court was not specific therefore there is hesitationin Parliament on how to deal with a motion of no confidence. Advocate Ramaili specified that the Parliament should have been allowed to put right the mistake made by the court as it has the power to repeal laws.
Junior Counsel Advocate Fusi Sehapi shared the same sentiment as that of his Senior Counsel, stating that the declaration of the 9th Amendment being unconstitutional has caused confusion in parliament as to what to do. He stated that there is uncertainty in parliament as to what to do in as far as the motion of no confidence is consent. Advocate Sehapi pleaded with the court that if it does not grand them their please, it should at least explain thoroughly what the judgment it gave meant.
In the meantime, the Court stated that conduct of Advocate Sehapi in an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which it declared unconstitutional, the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, who was heard discussing the matter on radio is not proper.
President of the Court of Appeal Professor Kananelo Mosito raised an issue about the court of public opinion and asked where they stand regarding that. He also asked what ethics say about a legal practitioner involved in a matter and who discusses the same matter which is also pending before court, over the radio. He remarked that if it was a politician or a litigant, the issue would be different but a lawyer doing that is completely unethical.
