Businessman Bakang Seretse wants certain key members of Judicial Service Commission (JSC) left out in the determination of his official complaint against justice Edwin Cameron.
In the complaint submitted to Chief Justice Gaopalelwe Ketlogetswe, Seretse has asked that both Attorney General Dick Bayford and Court of Appeal President Justice Tebogo Tau recuse themselves from any consideration of the case, arguing that their involvement would create an appearance of conflict of interest.
The complaint arises from two Court of Appeal judgments authored by Cameron in litigation involving Seretse and his companies. Seretse alleges that the judgments demonstrate apparent prejudgment, unequal application of legal standards and repeated use of personalised judicial language.
But beyond the allegations against Cameron, the complaint raises a potentially sensitive institutional question: who should be permitted to sit in judgment of the complaint itself?
Under the constitutional framework, the Attorney General ordinarily serves as a member of the Judicial Service Commission. However, Seretse argues that the Attorney General’s office was directly involved in one of the disputes that forms the basis of the complaint.
According to the complaint, the underlying litigation involved government legal interests represented by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions in one matter and the Attorney General’s Chambers in another. In the Khulaco appeal, the Attorney General was a named litigant through his constitutional office and government lawyers advanced the state’s case before the Court of Appeal.
Seretse argues that these circumstances create a direct institutional conflict.
‘The Complainants therefore respectfully request that the Attorney General, Mr Dick Bayford, take no part in the JSC’s consideration, deliberation or decision on this complaint,’ the filing states. The complaint further asks the commission to formally determine the question of Bayford’s recusal before considering the substance of the allegations against Cameron.
A similar request has been made regarding Justice Tebogo Tau. Tau, who serves as President of the Court of Appeal and is also a member of the JSC, sat on the three-judge panel that delivered the July 2026 judgment in the Khulaco matter. The judgment, authored by Cameron, forms a central part of Seretse’s complaint. Seretse argues that because Tau concurred in the judgment under scrutiny, it would be inappropriate for her to participate in deliberations concerning allegations arising from the same proceedings.
‘The Complainants respectfully consider it appropriate that Justice Tau take no part in the JSC’s consideration, deliberation or determination of the complaint,’ the filing states.