The High Court has dismissed an application by 21 aspiring lawyers who sought to overturn a decision by the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) refusing to register them for the 2026 Admission (Bar) Examinations.
Justice Nthomiwa Nthomiwa ruled that a dispute concerning a Botswana Qualifications Authority (BQA) audit of the law programme offered by Gaborone University College of Law and Professional Studies (GUC) in partnership with Leeds Beckett University could not be resolved through affidavits.
The court also ordered the applicants, led by Kgosi Arnold Somolekae, to pay the costs of the application.
However, the judgment did not find that the applicants’ degrees were invalid. It also did not determine whether the LSB’s decision was unlawful, unreasonable or procedurally unfair. The court dismissed the case because those questions could not properly be decided on the evidence presented in the urgent application.
“The question of whether it is unlawful, unreasonable, irrational, procedurally unfair, discriminatory and liable to be reviewed and set aside is one that cannot be determined from the affidavits filed before court,” Nthomiwa said in the judgment delivered on September 1.
The applicants completed Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degrees offered through an academic partnership between GUC and Leeds Beckett University in the United Kingdom. They graduated in July 2025 and applied by the end of April 2026 to sit the June Bar Examinations.
Their applications were rejected by the LSB on May 29. The society said the documents submitted did not demonstrate to its satisfaction that the applicants had obtained, through examinations conducted by the issuing university, a degree recognised under the Legal Practitioners Act.
The graduates approached the High Court on June 5, arguing that the decision was unreasonable, irrational and unfair. They said the LSB ignored relevant information, failed to provide adequate reasons and departed from its previous position without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
They also alleged that previous graduates who followed the same or a materially similar academic route had been permitted to sit the examinations.
According to the applicants, their certificates were issued by Leeds Beckett University and signed by the university’s Vice Chancellor and Registrar. The university also confirmed that GUC was its franchise partner in Botswana.
Leeds Beckett University said teaching materials and examination questions were prepared by its academics, while students’ work was moderated by members of the university’s law faculty. It maintained that the applicants were its students and graduates despite attending classes at GUC.
The applicants also relied on BQA correspondence confirming that the programme was accredited in March 2020, with Leeds Beckett University approved as the awarding institution. BQA had also extended the programme’s accreditation to December 31, 2026, while an application for renewal was being processed.
They further pointed to an August 2019 letter in which the LSB advised that Leeds Beckett University graduates would be recognised under the Legal Practitioners Act if the university was duly recognised in the United Kingdom.
The LSB, however, maintained that its refusal was not motivated by bad faith or hostility towards the graduates. It said it had a duty to protect the public, uphold professional standards and ensure that routes into the legal profession remained credible.
The society argued that its role could not be reduced to merely checking whether the name on a degree certificate appeared on a list of recognised universities.
Central to the dispute was an audit conducted by BQA into the GUC-Leeds Beckett programme. The LSB said BQA officials informed its chairman during an April 28 meeting that the audit had produced adverse findings relating to the programme.
Correspondence from BQA quoted in the judgment said the audit had identified findings affecting the delivery of the programme and requiring corrective action. One of the issues related to the endorsement of the programme by the relevant professional body.
BQA also informed the LSB that GUC had submitted a corrective action plan, which had been approved, and that the institution was implementing the required measures.
The LSB complained that it had not been given the full audit report despite several requests. It argued that the report was necessary to determine the programme’s regulatory status, academic supervision, assessment methods and suitability for professional purposes.
The applicants denied having knowledge of the audit findings. They argued that concerns never disclosed to them before their applications were rejected could not later be used to justify the decision.
Nthomiwa found that the opposing positions created a real and material dispute of fact that could not fairly be settled on written affidavits.
The judge accepted that the graduates had acted quickly after receiving the refusal and declared the case “marginally urgent”. The June examinations had been postponed pending the conclusion of the proceedings.
On costs, Nthomiwa said the applicants should have anticipated serious opposition and the possibility that factual disputes would arise. He consequently ordered them to bear the costs of the failed application.
