Chief Justice Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe dismissed the Society’s bid to undo a 30 July order admitting South African Senior Counsel Reginald Willis, warning against unnecessary intervention in foreign-counsel applications.
GAZETTE REPORTER
Chief Justice Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe has rebuked the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) over its handling of a high-profile legal dispute arising from the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) crisis.
The dispute followed Ketlogetswe’s order of 30 July 2026 admitting South African Senior Counsel Reginald Willis to practise in Botswana on an ad hoc basis. Willis was engaged to represent JS Beef (Pty) Ltd and Primefast (Pty) Ltd in urgent litigation against the Director of Veterinary Services, Dr Kobedi Segale, Minister of Lands and Agriculture Dr Edwin Dikoloti and the Attorney General over the handling of FMD restrictions.
The LSB later brought an urgent application seeking rescission of the admission order, arguing that it had not been given a meaningful opportunity to oppose Willis’s admission. Ketlogetswe dismissed the application with costs.
NATIONAL STAKES
Delivering his ruling, Ketlogetswe said the underlying FMD dispute could not be treated as a minor matter because of its implications for cattle movement, beef sales, export markets and the wider economy.
“This therefore cannot, by any standards, be regarded as a small matter,” the Chief Justice said.
The ruling came as the main FMD litigation continued before the High Court, with the two feedlot companies challenging government restrictions that they say have disrupted their operations.
NOTICE DISPUTE
The LSB argued that Willis had been admitted without proper notice and that the Society should have been allowed to oppose the petition. Ketlogetswe rejected that contention, finding that the LSB had been notified in terms of section 7(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act.
He also criticised the Society for failing to clearly signal its intention to oppose the application at the earliest opportunity, saying it instead “chose to silently prepare to oppose a petition as if they were a party thereto.”
LSB’S ROLE
The judgment also addressed the Law Society’s role in applications for the admission of foreign advocates. Ketlogetswe said the LSB has a regulatory function but does not automatically become a party to every such proceeding.
“It will therefore be in very exceptional cases, I think, where the LSB may wish, and be entitled to intervene, lest it becomes a busy body,” he said.
He rejected the argument that admitting foreign counsel would disadvantage local lawyers by denying them exposure to complex litigation, saying the legal test is whether the matter is sufficiently important and complex and whether the foreign advocate has specialised expertise not readily available locally.
DELAY WARNING
Ketlogetswe warned that unnecessary intervention could generate avoidable pre-trial disputes, delay cases and increase costs for litigants.
He also rejected claims that the LSB suffered legal prejudice from Willis’s admission, noting that the Society neither pays the advocate’s fees nor controls a litigant’s choice of legal representation.
“The LSB cannot wish to substitute its judgement for the discretion exercisable by the Chief Justice in such cases,” he said.