Capital Management Africa and Rapula Okaile have filed papers with the High Court opposing the liquidation proceedings against Capital Management Botswana (CMB). They want the court to rescind and set aside the final winding order issued on 18th of September 2018.
The tussle between the two entities is said to be motivated by the urge to regain assets which are estimated at a value of close to P477 million. Shareholders of CMB are accusing Non-Bank Financial Institution Regulatory Authority and Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF) of using false information to motivate the court to liquidate CMB.
There has been numerous court battles relating to Capital Management Botswana (Pty) Ltd (CMB), the Non-banking Financial Services Regulatory Authority (NBFIRA); the Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF), and Bona Life (Pty) Ltd (Bona). The matter involved a process instituted collectively by NBFIRA, BPOPF and Bona to place CMB under statutory management. The appointment of statutory manager Peter Collins was rejected by the High Court but subsequently the Appeal Court confirmed the Collins’s appointment.
Non-Bank Financial Institution Regulatory Authority and Capital Management Botswana (CMB) are first and second respondents respectively. Okaile has a 25% shareholding in CMB which he says justifies his joining in of the liquidation proceedings; on the other hand CMA is also a shareholder in CMB with a 75% stake.
NBFIRA brought the liquidation proceedings against CMB. “I am advised by my attorneys which advise I verily believe that in terms of the Section 166 of the Companies Act, the court in an application by shareholders of a company may grant leave to intervene and or join legal proceedings in which the company is involved,” writes Okaile.
“…we as shareholders of the 2nd respondent wish to be permitted to intervene and join the said proceedings and oppose the liquidation of the 2nd Respondent.” Okaile states that as shareholders of CMB and also respondents to the petition they have a direct interest in the liquidation proceedings hence their move to join the proceedings.
Okaile and CMA say they wish to intervene and be joined as co-respondents in the liquidation proceedings to oppose the proceedings on the basis that once the 2nd Respondent/ Respondent which as per the petition has been placed on statutory management and the statutory manager has compiled his reports and is done with statutory management, there is therefore no basis whatsoever to liquidate the 2nd Respondent/ Respondent.
According to the petition, the basis of the winding up order is basically that the Respondent (CMB) is insolvent and it is unable to pay its debts and its liabilities exceed its assets, and that there are no prospects that the Respondents will be restored to solvency within a reasonable period.
“I dispute and deny that the respondent is insolvent. I would aver that the Respondent owns a block of flats whose market value is P14 million, as shown by the valuation report…I also dispute and deny that even supposing without conceding that the Respondent was insolvent, that it cannot be restored to solvency within reasonable period…I dispute and deny that the CMB is even if it was there, it would have provided sufficient grounds for the liquidation of the Respondent as a suit is simply a suit and not a debt and it cannot be ground for liquidation,” writes Okaile.
Okaile narrates that the basis upon which the liquidation is alleged to be made is patently false and goes on to indicate that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to why it is alleged that there are no prospects that CMB could be restored to solvency within a reasonable time.
Okaile denies claims that CMB has rental arrears; further says the company does not have any employees because they were dismissed way back in April 2018 by the Statutory Manager. According to Okaile, the statutory manager has never made an attempt to demand for recapitalization of CMB, “should such a demand for capitalization have been made, the Applicants would have made an effort to do so.”
In another matter that Okaile denies, “The Respondent does not owe Lobatse Clay Works (Pty) Ltd and Yarona Media Holdings (Pty) Ltd P60 million and P17 million respectively. The monies alleged as debts are monies which the Botswana Opportunities Partnership (BOP) comprising of CMB and BPOPF were to invest in the said companies. These are not debts but proposed investments that the BOP and not the Respondent were to make in the said companies.” Okaile writes that the investments were not made because the partners in the BOP fell out.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE – ACCORDING TO PETER COLLINS
“CMB was appointed by BOP as its fund manager and CMB, in its capacity as General Partner delegated responsibility for the management of BOP to CMB in its capacity as fund manager. BPOPF made a capital commitment1 to contribute up to BWP500,000,000 to BOP. In 2015 and 2016 various drawdown notices were issued to BPOPF by CMB on behalf of BOP for the purpose of investing in certain identified private equity investments and for agreed fund expenses and fees. BPOPF duly paid the aforesaid drawdown notices amounting in aggregate to some BWP470,000,000.00.
On 24th August 2017, BPOPF notified CMB that it was in breach of the BOP Agreement, and demanded an explanation from CMB and rectification of various issues, arising out of the BOP Agreement. On 20th September 2017 a drawdown notice was issue by CMB for an amount of BWP77,000,000.00 (“Disputed Notice”) for the purchase of shares in Lobatse Clay Works (Proprietary) Limited and Yarona Media Holdings (Proprietary) Limited.
BPOPF refused to pay and contended that the Disputed Notice was not binding on BPOPF. They asserted that their refusal to comply with the Disputed Notice did not result in an actionable breach of the BOP Agreement, because inter alia: The amount requested in the Disputed Notice exceeded the Capital Commitment made by BPOPF to BOP. The Disputed Notice was not a Drawdown Notice as defined in the BOP Agreement.”
Peter Collins is of the view that the Disputed Notice gave insufficient notice to BPOPF. He sates in the letter that the BPOPF's Capital Commitment, as set out in the Deed of Adherence, was BWP500,000,000. Further stating that the total disbursed drawdowns from notices issued by CMB totalled some BWP470,000,000. As at the date of the Disputed Notice, BPOPF's undrawn Capital Commitment was therefore BWP30,000,000 or thereabouts.
“The total amount that the General Partner sought to draw down in terms of the Disputed Notice was BWP77,000,000.2 This exceeded the available Capital Commitment available. As noted above, the BOP Agreement prohibits drawdowns of amounts from any Partner in excess of their Capital Commitment. The Disputed Notice was therefore invalid because it purported to draw down more capital than was available.
There were discussions, in 2016, between BPOPF and CMB about BPOPF potentially increasing its capital commitment. BPOPF advised CMB, in a letter dated 22 November 2016, that BPOPF had allocated P380,000,000 to BOP but the allocation was expressly conditional upon receipt by BPOPF of a reconciliation of the funds drawn so far, proof of payment of 1% contribution by CMB and a full accounting for BPOPF's capital invested in the BOP Fund.
CMB never contributed the Limited Partner's 1% capital contributions that it had agreed to contribute3 nor did CMB provide the requested reconciliation and accounting. BPOPF's conditional allocation did not therefore ever become an actual commitment by virtue of failure of the suspensive conditions aforesaid. The Disputed Notice did not meet the definition of a Drawdown Notice contained in the BOP Agreement.4 As noted above, "Drawdown Notice" is defined as a notice in substantially the form of Schedule 5 to the BOP Agreement (the "Prescribed Form").
I have also reviewed the documentation relating to the purported removal of BPOPF by CMB as Limited Partner. The documentation reveals that on the 19 October 2017, CMB sent a letter to BPOPF, which purported to be a notice of default. CMB advised that it would proceed to declare BPOPF to be a Defaulting Limited Partner if BPOPF did not pay the Drawndown Amount set out in the Disputed Notice.
On 30 October 2017, BPOPF responded noting that the Disputed Notice was invalid and that BPOPF was therefore not in breach of its obligations under the BOP Agreement. On 28 November 2017, the Advisory Board of BOP exercised its powers under the BOP Agreement5 to remove CMB as the General Partner. Notice was given by BPOPF to CMB of said removal on 1 December 2017.
On 11 December 2017, CMB responded to BPOPF advising that BPOPF's interests in BOP had been sold on for BWP50,000,000.00. CMB did not name the party which had purchased that interest. I have since established that that the payment of P50,000,000 was made out of an account operated by CMB for BOP fiduciary business and not from a third party or from CMB’s own funds.
Peter Collins is of the view that the disposal was accordingly a sham and unlawful for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the agreement I entered into with BPOPF dated 8th August 2018. “You have seen this agreement and you will therefore have read the My decision to enter into the settlement agreement was taken after due deliberation over an extended period while the litigation in both the High Court and Court of Appeal was pending.
I had more than sufficient, objective, uncontradictable evidence at my disposal to come to the conclusion which I did. CMB’s prospects in the arbitration proceedings were not simply dismal, there were no prospects at all on the written demonstrable facts. Lastly, as you are aware, CMB has been now placed under provisional liquidation and the management and control of the affairs of CMB currently vests solely with the provisional liquidator. I suggest that any future enquiries relating to matters of CMB which you may have, be directed to the provisional liquidator,” reads an extended letter from Peter Collins.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE – ACCORDING TO CMB
“By way of background, BOP’s relationship with the BPOPF was terminated almost a year ago when it proved to be an unreliable partner, it having defaulted on its financial obligations to BOP and the companies that it invested in. The BPOPF’s default had major consequences for a company which BOP intended to invest in, resulting in a loss of some 2000 jobs.
As a consequence of the BPOPF’s default, CMB was obliged in terms of the partnership agreement ruling at the time to seek a new limited partner, which it did, and disposed of the BPOPF’s stake to the highest bidder. The BPOPF waited months before heading to the High Court (on 27 December during the court recess of all things), claiming it was still a limited partner even though it had been paid for its share months prior and kept the money.
The court rejected the BPOPF’s case and pointed out it was supposed to enter arbitration. The BPOPF then waited months again before going the arbitration route, in the interim pushing a massive defamatory media campaign against CMB and working hand in glove with its co-conspirators NBFIRA and Bona Life. Bona Life, which is a company BOP / CMB rescued from insolvency, had blown its capital and wanted more money from the BPOPF.
Thus it found a willing partner in the BPOPF to wage its defamatory war, having been promised a new nest egg in return. Prior to Bona’s management ditching CMB in favour of the BPOPF, CMB had raised numerous awkward governance questions with Bona which no doubt sparked off Bona’s campaign against CMB.
Bona had no “dirt” on CMB, so it made numerous false and defamatory allegations against a CMB sister company (CMBF1), which was not regulated by NBFIRA, working closely with Collins (who was at that point not statutory manager but simply a legal advisor on a deal CMB attempted to broker between CMBF1 and Bona. NBFIRA used Bona’s false claims as an excuse to take over the running of CMB.
All of Bona’s claims were proven to be false. However, the triumvirate succeeded in getting the matter before court. Unsurprisingly, the High Court threw out their case with disdain, but in a peculiar twist, the Appeal Court with ruled in favour of NBFIRA without any lawyers from CMB being present to present their case and delivered its judgment in a matter of days.
Thus NBFIRA (and the BPOPF) was able to assume control over CMB using Collins as statutory manager. In the roughly four weeks that CMB was under statutory management, Collins tossed out the arbitration process (which would have resulted in the true facts being made a matter of record) and entered into a flimsy “settlement agreement” with the BPOPF in terms of which he sought to reverse the sale of the BPOPF’s interest in BOP.
The settlement “agreement” is not worth the paper it is written on. It is an “agreement” between two parties that are not party to, or signatories to, any the legal agreements that underpin BOP. By way of background, CMB was removed by the BOP Advisory Board as the general partner of BOP in mid-January (prior to the commencement of NBFIRA’s shenanigans relating to statutory management). A consequence of that was the automatic cancellation of the BOP partnership agreement and the replacement with a new partnership agreement – in other words, the contracts that the BPOPF was party to no longer exist – and have not for some considerable time.
Thus, Collins, who deliberately chose not to verify this, was unable to reverse the previous contracted sale simply because he had no locus standi to do so. Further, in terms of the settlement “agreement”” the BPOPF has attempted to return the funds it received to the buyer – however the buyer (and new limited partner) has rejected the offer to return the funds and thus remains the lawful limited partner of the BOP.
(For more information please see attached a notice directed to the BPOPF’s lawyers in this regard.) Consequently, neither the BPOPF (nor its company Viltry (Pty) Ltd), have any legal standing with BOP and by extension yourself. They are not entitled to demand, or request, any information from yourself, or to demand, or request and particular action from yourself at all.
For Viltry (or the BPOPF) to attain any legal standing they are required in law to seek declaratory relief from the High Court confirming that their actions and the actions of Collins are valid. Understandably, despite this having been pointed out to them, they have not sought the declaratory relief as they know they will lose – they have no case whatsoever. They are instead again relying on aggressive bullying tactics and their defamatory media campaign to try to gain by deception that which they could not obtain through legal means.
Please be advised that as BOP is a major shareholder in your company, it takes a dim view of the actions of the BPOPF (and Vlitry) and all necessary steps will be taken to safeguard the interests of BOP and yourself. You are requested not to assist the BPOPF nor Viltry in its fraudulent attempt to highjack BOP and its assets. Factually, the BOP is in the process of being dissolved and you will be contacted in due course by the entity appointed for this process for further guidance.
From time immemorial the church was seen as a sacred haven for weary souls and those who need rest from worldly aches and pains. This is even written in the Holy Bible; “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light,” Matthew 11:28-30.
This being said, anyone would be forgiven to think that the first place to run to would be the church. Time has however changed this.
The atrocities perpetrated by the church and their pastors or those who have been called upon to ‘lead the flock’ have not only distorted their mission, they have caused followers immeasurable pains.
Adorned in the finest regalia in church, the so called men of God are nothing but wolf in sheep’s clothing as they lurk in church corners to prey on the innocent and vulnerable in a place where victims thought was their ‘Father’s house’.
Behind every monster are those who clean up after it and in this case, these are church followers who are alive to the inhumane acts caused by the very men of God whom they have put on pedestals. These followers, more often than not are Elders in the church or those in the revered pastor’s inner circles. These followers would, in an attempt to shield their ‘man of God’, portray the victim as a Jezebel, and shield their pastor and the church’s reputation, forsaking the trauma inflicted upon the victim.
The author of ‘Sex on the Alter’, Kaelo McCoffee was inspired to pen down his book after seeing the endless and unreported incidents that occurred within church walls.
“It’s like a play, a drama based on true stories of how “men of God” abuse women sexually, use them and dump them. Not just that, but it addresses how desperate women are for marriage and relationships, resulting in pain. This is covering ill activities happening in the church,” said McCoffee.
“The purpose of this book is to open someone’s eyes, not just ladies, even guys, that church might be seen or recognised as a good place to be, that might be true yes, but people shouldn’t feel comfortable because they are in church. They should be aware of the dangers that can happen to them in church, like I talked about abuse. I wrote this book to bring awareness, mostly to women because they’re the ones always going through such mostly.”
If one is to look at the grabbling GBV cases within Botswana that occur on a daily basis, one would expect the church to intervene. Not this time around, seeing as how the church is marred with such cases.
“I’ve seen young girls being used because they fell in love with the guy in a nice suit, they get deceived by material things, they get lied to, “I’ll marry you” but after sleeping with them, they leave them, young girls end up reporting cases of rape, yet the truth is they were in love, but because the promises weren’t fulfilled there’s always drama. Some get paid to be silent. I won’t mention anyone by names, but this is what has been happening in many churches, hearts are being broken in the name of the “anointed one”. I’m not saying every man of God, I’m talking about things I know of and I’ve heard happening,” he said.
“And to God it’s an abomination to drag His name into sin and claiming to be righteous, if God has promised in His word that His servants will even face more punishment for diverting His people into wrong doings then they deserve to be punished, they’re humans and they are not even doing what they preach. If the men of God in the Bible got punished for such doings what more of these guys who mess with our sisters.”
In an Interview with WeekendPost, the founder of Epistle of Power International Church (EPIC), Duncan Katse confirmed with this publication that these devious acts are very much present within churches and orchestrated by the so called ‘pastors’.
“It is true and one thing that makes it true is that we have got a lot of pastors who are not really trained in the area of becoming a pastor and there was no discipline instilled. Young ladies also trust their pastors and spiritual mentors with their all; their lives, their bodies. So when these pastors notice that they are highly regarded they can do anything. If there is no alignment in the mentorship, it is easy for the pastor to manipulate the congregants with spiritual things.”
“Some would say ‘God wants us to have our moment alone’, they will start manufacturing funny prophecies to make the person comfortable to relax with them. Sometimes in private spaces, which becomes very dangerous for a young lady. Not all the ladies who go to church have the intension of sleeping with the man of God. Most women do not report these cases because some judge themselves and are afraid to be accused for falsely accusing the man of God,” said Katse.
How women are raped in church
According to close sources, these so called ‘men of God’, threaten young girls after sleeping with them and that they will be cursed should they decide to speak out. Some will be threatened with the infamous line; ‘touch not my anointed.’
“They use their spiritual and prophetic authority to manipulate these women into raping them. There is also an oil called ‘do as I say’ and most of the girls who became victims will tell you, after being raped, they did not know how the rape occurred. Once they apply that oil, whatever they say you are going to do it whether you like it or not. That is why most of these girls are raped and left sick because most of these men of God are sick. They are sick of HIV/AIDS and STI’s. Before raping these women they prepare them emotionally by taking them out for dinners and they end up raping them.”
Botswana Council of Churches responds
“Sexual violence and abuse has been an enormously painful and common feature of our collective past. No sector of society, churches included, has been immune to the problem of sexual violence. It is horrible. Whenever we have seen sexual violence, it has always been an offence to God, and a shattering of God’s good, redemptive hopes for the human story. Sexual abuse is clearly a shattering of God’s intentions for our humanity,” said Bishop Metlha Beleme from Botswana Council of Churches
“When God’s ways are honoured, there is love, because love – the Scriptures tell us – is the very nature and character of God. When you think about it, sexual violence does all the opposite of 1Corinthians 13:4-7, which talks about love. God wants us to experience love. So, apart from the laws of the land, the Church also has Canon law and the Church court for the trial of such offences as Sexual Immorality.”
Beleme further highlighted that; ‘‘there are other healing processes that follow e.g. forgiveness and reconciliation, counselling. Amongst other things we can confess that Church Leaders and Pastors are sinners too, and must be held accountable,” he said.
Maybe when all is said and done, the long arm of the law will forever elude churches as evidenced by the many cases internationally regarding the Catholic church and the cases of paedophilia and child molestation that have been ongoing for years on end. And very rarely in Botswana do pastors face criminal charges in court for sex offenses and that may also be because very few women come forth for fear of being ostracised by both church and society.
Every five years, a cohort of newly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) gather at parliament buildings to take a symbolic oath to assume new role as rarefied individuals who make Botswana’s laws — as prescribed in the constitution — for the good governance of Botswana. Staff Writer ALFRED MASOKOLA observes an abdication of responsibility that has become a new normal in the business of parliament.
Few days before President Sir Ketumile Masire cleared his desk at Office of the President to end an eventful and successful 18 year presidency, his apparent heir, Festus Mogae was reaching out to opposition legislators in a bid to solicit for support for his choice for Vice President.
Since 1997 constitutional amendments, parliament has been mandated with the responsibility of endorsing the Vice President before assuming office.
Mogae was scheduled to ascend to the highest position in the land in wake of series of events in the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) that made him the only viable candidate. Beleaguered by factions, Mogae could not count on his polarised party.
As many noted, Mogae was relatively a new entrant in the BDP politics. Though he was an accomplished technocrat, he was not a political power horse and was without the charisma that the likes of Daniel Kwelagobe, Ponatshego Kedikilwe and the late Lt General Merafhe had.
Luckily for Mogae, his choice for Vice President was a likeable figure — Lt Gen Ian Khama — and accepted across factional divide, and even more remarkably, by some in opposition ranks. The name was endorsed by all BDP MPs, and the cherry on top; by additional two opposition MPs.
The build-up to this accomplishment however highlighted one major thing that Mogae never took for granted — the legitimate power of MPs.
Even in his presidency, Mogae sought to use parliament caucus for the purpose of achieving consensus rather than imposing his own will. Throughout his presidency, Mogae had to navigate through the hostile factions that kept him on his toes.
In 2003, Mogae in what proved to be naïve, publicly endorsed his Vice President- Khama, in the party chairmanship race against Kedikilwe, the co-leader of what was then known as Kwelagobe/Kedikilwe faction, and later Barataphathi.
Inevitably, Khama won the chairmanship — a development that saw Barataphathi losing control of the Central Committee, for the first time since 1981. With victory in 2003, emerged a rebranded faction called A-Team, led by Merafhe and Jacob Nkate.
The faction will come to dominate both the Central Committee and cabinet after 2004 general elections. Mogae had left out Kwelagobe, Kedikilwe, and GUS Matlhabaphiri out of cabinet after 2004 general elections, inadvertently strengthening the backbench which closed ranks with opposition MPs to subject the executive to scrutiny.
At the height of exercising their power, the backbench blocked and rejected government policies and other pieces of legislation brought before parliament.
By 2006, cabinet found it difficult to pass bills, including the Judges Pension Bill and the crucial intelligence bill which created the DIS in 2007.
Faced with a rigid backbench, Mogae reshuffled his cabinet in 2007 restructuring ministries to accommodate members of rival faction in cabinet. Thereafter, the relationship between cabinet and backbench became cordial.
“I am fully aware that the MPs, both the former ministers, the cabal of some new MPs and the rest of the House, can make and unmake me politically,” Mogae famously said at 2001 BDP Congress in Palapye, as he deliberated on some of the demands brought forward by MPs.
Like anywhere else in democratic dispensations, MPs hold their own and are not pushovers, even in instances where the executive belongs to the same political party that controls the legislative house.
Mogae had accepted that MPs have their own responsibility and that their power was legitimate. Throughout his presidency, his modus operandi was to consult MPs through caucus whenever an important decision was to be made in parliament.
The approach was also the tradition during the presidency of Masire, the founding father of both the BDP and the nation. Masire considered therisanyo paramount prior to any decision making and was described by Mogae during his memorial as, “consultative, collaborative and patient.”
In 2008, things started to change. In recent years, BDP caucus has become increasingly powerful. Unlike in the past, instead of seeking consensus, MPs have been forced to support decisions of the cabinet, even when MPs are not in agreement.
“Caucus has always been there and it is part and parcel of parliament in democracy. Caucus can be flexible depending on leadership. Some issues are allowed conscience debate if caucus cannot reach consensus,” said a high ranking BDP member who served as MP under both Mogae and Khama.
“Mogae was liberal and allowed MPs to use their conscience when there was no consensus. Caucus only became a contentious issue during Khama [Ian] presidency and today.”
In 2011, weeks after civil servants called off strikes that lasted nearly three months, and crippled the economy, then junior minister in the ministry of Local Government, Kentse Rammidi resigned from the cabinet amid a position taken by the party.
In trying to deal with power of civil servants, cabinet brought before parliament a Bill that sought to prevent a number of cadres in the civil service including teachers from participating in industrial action by making them essential service.
Rammidi, who had sympathised with workers during the strike chose to quit the party after BDP caucus forced MPs to support the bill which was to be brought to parliament by then Minister of Labour and Home Affairs, Peter Siele.
The development set had ushered in a new era in the governance of BDP, with the Executive effectively rendering Parliament — which by all intent and purpose is meant to prove checks on it — a rubber stamp.
The BDP caucus effectively derives its mandate from President as the head of executive.
The latest victim of the domineering caucus is Jwaneng-Mabutsane MP, Reggie Reatile.
Two months ago, the maverick MP was slapped with suspension for abstaining instead of voting alongside agreed party caucus positions.
In the build-up to his suspension, Reatile had on numerous occasions voted against the BDP on the Parliament floor. Reatile also abstained when voting was called on the Botswana Defense Force (BDF) Amendment Bill meant to create the position of Judge Advocate General.
Reatile was also the BDP black sheep that voted against Speaker of Parliament, Phandu Skelemani’s decision to suspend Leader of Opposition (LOO) Dumelang Saleshando, from parliament last month.
Prior to Reatile, maverick Ignatius Moswaane, Francistown West legislator, was also suspended. Moswaane has also proved to be a thorn in the flesh of the ruling party as he consistently refused to toe the party line, instead following his conscience.
Moswaane has since resigned from the BDP in favour of Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC).
The insistence on block voting have seen parliament being ultra-polarised, and inadvertently at the expense of the public and good governance.
Despite the country grappled with rising incidence of Gender Based Violence (GBV), the ruling MPs rejected a motion tabled by Mahalapye East MP, Yandani Boko, following a caucus decision.
Boko had tabled a motion on urgency calling for parliament to request President Mokgweetsi Masisi to set-up a Commission of Inquiry on Gender Based Violence (GBV) and other Sexual Offences.
During the BDP caucus, it was agreed that the motion should not be agreed upon, but instead be countered with a suggestion that the duty be referred to an Inter-Ministerial Committee.
Commissions of Inquiry Act empowers the President to set-up a commission and to set its terms of reference.
The motion was however withdrawn by the mover following lack of support from BDP majority.
The rejection of the motion is part of many that have not survived the might of BDP caucus.
In the run-up to 2019 general election, Masisi promised to repeal the infamous Media Practitioners Act passed during his predecessor’s administration. The promise was buttressed in the BDP 2019 election manifesto.
However, when Selibe Phikwe West lawmaker, Dithapelo Keorapetse, brought before parliament the same bill, the ruling party caucus tore it apart. In brief; it was rejected.
The constitution of Botswana, adopted in 1966 following independence, vests legislative powers in parliament. Parliament, through its committees is empowered to provide oversight.
Parliament, indirectly elects the President and also has power to dissolve parliament through a pass of motion of no confidence on government supported by simple majority.
Parliament also approves national spending and also entitled to amend certain provisions of the constitution, save for entrenched provisions.
In giving parliament the legislative duties, the constitution also gives the President the power to ascent to bills passed by parliament or return them to parliament if not satisfied. Nevertheless, if parliament insists on not making any amendments, the President is compelled to ascent to the Bill failing which parliament will lead to the dissolution of parliament, necessitating new elections.
With so much power at its disposal why is parliament abdicating its true responsibility?
The latest edition of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Monitor shows the continuing and devastating impacts of the pandemic on jobs and labour income since early 2020, and the massive disruptions in the labour market that will persist into the fourth quarter of this year.
ILO analysts argue that policymakers will need to maintain support to employment and incomes over the coming months and well into 2021, and to address key challenges.