After more than four decades of independence, Botswana, like other post-colonial transitional societies, is still faced with the continuing task of reconciling plural legal systems inherited from the former colonial power at institutional, process and value levels. As was the pattern in the rest of Anglo-phone Africa, at independence the country chose to retain the dual legal system. However, in relation to criminal law, Botswana dispensed with dualism of law while retaining dualism of the courts. She opted for criminal law anchored on a penal code based on the English common law to be applied by all courts, and partially standardised criminal procedure rules for customary courts. Thus, the basic model of dispute processing in criminal matters is based primarily on the legal formalist approach of the common law courts. This runs counter to the general scheme of dispute processing at customary law which was inherently more flexible and offered various entry points into, and options in the construction of disputes. Limiting these processes at customary law has been a major source of friction between indigenous and received courts as well as between the traditional leadership and politicians. Using an illustrative case, this article shows how the dispute process has become more unpredictable and complex under current arrangements. More specifically, it shows how different dispute resolution mechanisms, especially the courts, try to navigate the conflicting ideals of legal formalism and a social order underpinned by cus

Projects

Currently no objects available

Currently no objects available