“To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organisation and the individual are harmed”. p. 31 Chairman Mao.
The above statement by Mao urged me to respond to statement made by Mr Pilane and the letter submitted by his party to the Registrar of society. I listened to Mr Pilane’s interview on radio and also read a letter submitted by his party. Mr Pilane’s interview raised many issues, notably; 1) that UDC is an electoral arrangement and not a political party, 2) the Constitution submitted by comrades Boko and Saleshando is not the proper one (unlawful), and the proper one is that produced by constitutional stream, 3) big brother mentality, 4) the BNF Conference resolutions at Rakops have no bearing in UDC, 5) the UDC Congress was a gathering of friends and 6) that the operational of Constitution of UDC is the one registered on the 23rd August 2012. These are some of the issues he discussed on the 18th July 2018 at Duma Fm.
I now wish to respond accordingly and put to rest a lot of misleading statements made during the said interview. I state from the onset that, I was a member of the Constitutional stream under the UDC banner. I also want to concede upfront that the operational Constitution of UDC is the one registered on the 23rd August 2012 until the Registrar of Societies approves the one submitted by Presidents Boko and Saleshando. I will start with the genesis of the UDC Constitutional amendment and thereafter deal with Pilane’s misleading statements.
GENESIS OF UDC CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
It is imperative to state that UDC NEC agreed in February 2016 or thereabout that the operational constitution be amended and set up terms of reference with the following objectives:
A constitution that is simple, clear and practicable, and conducive to cultivating an efficient, effective and excellent political entity and organisation. Conceive, crystalize and draft a comprehensive constitution of the UDC that is a significant improvement of the current one. Advance a revised constitution that is conducive to the ideals and values of the UDC over the long term, one that will stand the test of time.
The said UDC NEC meeting also resolved that the draft constitution be completed by 15th May 2016 whilst final draft was envisaged to be ready by 30th August 2016 and UDC Constitutional Congress was envisaged to be in September 2016. Unfortunately, the constitutional congress did not take place in September 2016 since the Constitutional stream completed its work on the 15th October 2016 with referrals to the Main Negotiating Team (MNT) to resolve differences arising from the Constitutional stream. Having outlined the background information, I now refute Mr Pilane’s misleading statements one by one.
IS UDC NOT A POLITICAL PARTY?
Mr Pilane contends that UDC is not a political party but an electoral arrangement. The million dollar question that springs to fore is, what is a political party? According to Pilane, an electoral arrangement is not a political party. I beg to differ. Any political formation be it an alliance, merger, coalition or whatever nomenclature it uses to label itself, as long as it contests for the assumption of state power, is a political party.
Section 150(2) of the Electoral Act (cap.02:09) clear states that a political party may apply through its leader or secretary for registration of a symbol to be used by it at elections. The High Court interpreted section 148 (predecessor to section 150(2) above) and held that only political parties (apart from Independent candidates) register to contest state power not non-political formations [see BPP v BAM & others (2002)2 BLR 333 at 340].
Article 3.3 of the Constitution of UDC registered in 2012 clearly states that UDC is a political party. It provides thus; “The Umbrella shall contest elections as a registered political party drawing its electoral support from all sections of the society of Botswana”. The same provision still exists in the Constitution submitted by UDC President and his Vice-President Saleshando and it exists in the one registered by BMD. To this end, Pilane misled Batswana by saying UDC is not a political party and I am at lost what he wanted to achieve by that statement.
WHICH UDC CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT IS VALID?
This question arises from the fact that Pilane said he does not recognise the one submitted by UDC President and his Vice-President, comrade Saleshando, thereby claiming that his, is the legitimate one. There is a reason why Pilane wants a draft rejected by the Constitutional stream. The reason is, he conveniently appointed himself First Vice-President. That is where his interest lies.
Pilane’s interest in his so-called Constitution is captured by Article 8.1(b) of the draft submitted by his party to the Registrar of Societies on the 18th July 2018, which reads that; “the person who, for the time being, is the President of the BMD shall be the First Deputy President of the UDC responsible for Administration and Management and shall be the First Vice-President of the Republic of Botswana when the UDC is in power”.
In the interview Pilane misleadingly said that the constitution of Constitutional stream is the valid one because all four parties accepted the draft whilst the one submitted by comrade Boko and Saleshando is unknown to him. Pilane statement is far away from the truth. The truth is that the final meeting of the UDC Constitutional stream was held in Francistown on the 15th October 2016. From UDC, only BPP and BNF attended and Pilane did not attend and none from BMD attended the said meeting. BCP was duly represented.
In the said meeting BCP and UDC were deadlocked on the issue of staffing of UDC NEC as well as who should be First Vice-President of UDC and the State upon assumption of power. It is imperative to state that the issue of two Vice- Presidents was mooted by BNF representatives during their consultation with the Secretary General in order to break deadlock. Each party Representatives were permitted to seek guidance from their principals on the deadlock.
Upon reporting back, BPP, BNF and BMD agreed on the principle that they be two Vice- Presidents. BCP representatives rejected the proposal of Two Vice- Presidents. Similarly, BCP, BNF and BPP agreed that there were two Negotiating parties, being UDC and BCP, whilst Pilane made it clear that they were four (4) political parties and he represented BMD not UDC.
His reasoning was, if he accepted that the negotiations were between BCP and UDC that would mean that BCP would have half of the positions in UDC NEC as well as constituency allocations. The BCP denied his exposition and explained that it only applies to UDC Presidency but he maintained his stance nonetheless.
After protracted persuasions and prodding, members of the Constitutional stream agreed at Francistown that we were deadlocked and we could not agree on the composition of the Executive of the structure of UDC+ at party level and the composition of the Executive arm at National level upon assumption of power. At Francistown, the Constitutional stream agreed that Nelson Ramaotwana of UDC and Martin Dingake of BCP should author a referral to the Main Negotiating Team capturing the areas of disagreements. We did author a referral, of which its main theme was shared in what’s up group of the Constitutional stream. The said referral was signed by Ramaotwana and Dingake.
For avoidance of doubt, the BCP never supported the creation of two Vice-Presidents at UDC and State levels. The Constitutional stream resolved as follows in relation to the creation of two Vice-Presidents;
“We were also not agreeable on whether or not we should have two (2) Vice-Presidents. The BCP is against the creation of two Vice-Presidents at both party level and national level. For the longest time, as a party, they have taken the position that BDP Government has been creating positions for its members without any justification. In any event, under the current constitutional dispensation, there is only one Vice-President, who by law is entitled to take over the Presidency in the event of inability of the President to discharge his functions.
The UDC representatives say it is logically sound to cede the Vice-Presidency to the BCP in view of the fact that the BCP has ceded the Presidency to the UDC. However, the UDC suggested that in light of the sentiments expressed by the BMD to the effect that it is not willing to concede the running mate-ship of UDC to the BCP, there is need to consider the feasibility of two Vice- Presidents at National Level.
Given the legal hurdles of having two Vice-Presidents at National level, it was agreed that the matter is sensitive to warrant a discussion in the presence of the BMD, which at the last meeting they weren’t, and had asked that the meeting proceed. Given the sensitive and the BMD absence then, the UDC collective then present, thought a referral was best. A referral was therefore agreed upon”. In light of the above referral by the Constitutional stream, it is clear that Pilane once more fed Batswana with misleading tales to suit his ambition- First Vice-Presidency.
It is clear that the BCP at the Constitutional stream rejected the notion of two Vice-Presidents. After referral to the Main Negotiating Team (MNT), our draft was improved by removing plus (+), Secretary General Post. The MNT also added Congress as a structure. The Presidents of BCP and UDC also debated the feasibility of two Vice- Presidents and BCP compromised by allowing it for progress sake.
The above explanation takes me to the next issue raised by BMD objection to the Registrar of Societies dated 18th July 2018, especially paragraph 16 thereof; which reads thus;
“The only new constitution of the UDC which was negotiated and unanimously agreed by the Constitution Stream and improved by the Upper Negotiating Body comprising equal representation of all 4 parties is the only one we accept as legitimate and as worthy of approval and registration by the Registrar. We attach that Constitution hereto”.
I have already demonstrated the debates and disagreements of the Constitutional stream above and there is no need to repeat same here, save to say the BMD letter is fallacious. The Constitution submitted by BMD at the Registrar of Societies is exactly the same with the one, the Constitutional Stream disagreed about. No improvements are contained in BMD constitution as submitted at the Registrar of societies, except the absence of plus (+) in the name UDC. What a disgrace?
The BMD conveniently omitted to state that the Main Negotiating Team included the UDC Congress as the Supreme Body and same was discussed and agreed to by the Presidents of UDC and BCP. BMD also conveniently omitted to tell the nation that the process started at streams, through MNT and ended with UDC and BCP Presidents. This then takes me to confidently answer the question, which constitution is valid? The answer is, the one submitted by Boko and Saleshando on the 13th July 2018.
REASONS WHY BOKO AND SALESHANDO’S CONSTITUTION IS VALID
When negotiations were commissioned in August 2016 at Oasis Motel, all four parties agreed that the negotiations were between BCP and UDC.
All four parties agreed that there were three layers, commencing with streams, through MNT and at the apex being BCP and UDC Presidents.
All four parties agreed that the main purposes of streams were to gather data to enable MNT to speedily conclude talks.
It was also agreed that where the streams were deadlocked there should refer the matter to MNT and in turn if MNT was deadlock, it would refer the matter to UDC and BCP Presidents for finalisation and/or resolution.
In this vein, the constitutional stream disagreed and deadlocked and referred the matter to MNT. MNT as the main negotiating team, had power to overhaul, what the lower stream proposed and in this case, it included Congress as a structure of UDC.
The Presidents of BCP and UDC also agreed on two Vice-Presidents of equal status as announced by comrade Nehemiah Modubule late last year in a UDC Press conference addressed by Presidents of UDC and BCP, in the presence of BMD and BPP.
The final product of the constitution of UDC is what BCP and UDC Presidents agreed upon and same was tendered to UDC NEC and in turn UDC NEC convened UDC congress to settle the draft once and for all.
Again Pilane and his BMD submitted a constitution that was rejected by the constitutional stream, MNT and Presidents of BCP and UDC. To say Pilane’s draft constitution was the correct one is a fallacy? Assuming I am wrong; is there any other authoritative source that backs up my explanations above. Before, I deal with authoritative sources, let me bring to your attention another BMD and Pilane’s fallacies as contained at paragraph 11 of their letter dated 15th July 2018 submitted to the Registrar of societies on the 18th July 2018 which reads;
“In addition to that, the new constitution which they claim is of the UDC is unknown to the BMD, the BMD has not participated in its preparation, the BMD now knows but does not agree with what it contains, the BMD does not know who prepared it and on whose instructions, the BMD does not agree to the approval and registration of that constitution by the Registrar, and the BMD opposes the approval and registration of that constitution”.
Is it correct to say that the BMD does not know who prepared it? What a joke? Comrade Modubule sat in the MNT where it was agreed to remove first and second Deputy President and replaced same with just two Vice-Presidents of equal status. An addition of Congress as a structure was also made by MNT. The said agreements were then submitted to the BCP and UDC Presidents to endorse and they did not agree to them.
Any doubting Thomas is referred to the report of the BNF President delivered to the BNF Central Committee on the 16th January 2018, which report covers all processes from streams up to the BCP and UDC Presidents, especially paragraphs 19-27 thereof. The said paragraphs are surmised as follows:
“When all lower stages of the process were concluded all matters from these were referred to the Presidents who were to meet and render their final decisions on all matters and aspects of the process. The meeting of the Presidents was held in Francistown and were attended primarily by the UDC President for the one part and the BCP President, for the other part.
The President of UDC brought along … the then President of BMD as well as the President of BPP. No agreement could be reached at that meeting. The UDC then convened its NEC to discuss the developments. At this meeting all the outstanding issues were resolved by the UDC NEC and contact was made with BCP immediately to seal the agreement and it was duly sealed. … at the stage at which we are, the report of the Transition Team has been submitted to the Presidents who have discussed it generally and have moved the NEC to convene a Constitutional Congress to extensively discuss and settle the Constitution before submitting it to the Registrar of Societies for Registration. The Congress will be held on the 23rd February 2018 in Gaborone”.
The answer as to who gave instructions is contained in Boko’s report. UDC NEC concluded all outstanding issues and negotiation with BCP was sealed by the UDC President and BCP President. The instruction came from the said two Presidents as mandated by their respective parties, namely, UDC and BCP. Having debunked Pilane and BMD fallacies, I now turn to refute another fallacy relating to the status of UDC Congress held on the 23rd February 2018.
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has violated the One-China policy, and caused the escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Experts and political observers across the spectra agree that Pelosi’s actions and subsequent pronouncements by US President Joe Biden gave impetus to an already simmering tension in the Taiwan Strait, provoking China to strengthen its legitimate hold on the Taiwan Strait waters, which the US and Taiwan deem as ‘international waters’.
Pelosi’s visit to China’s Taiwan region has been heavily criticised across the globe, with China arguing that this is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US Joint Communiqués. In response to this reckless move which seriously undermined China’s sovereignty, and interfered in China’s internal affairs, the expectation is for China to give a firm response. Pelosi visit violated the commitments made by the U.S. side, and seriously jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
To give context to China’s position over Taiwan region, the history behind gives us perspective. It is also important to note that the history between China and Taiwan is well documented and the US has always recognized it.
The People’s Republic of China recognises Taiwan as its territory. It has always been the case even before the Nationalist Republic of China government fled to the previously Japanese-ruled Island after losing the civil war on the mainland in 1949. According to literature that threat was contained for decades — first with a military alliance between the US and the ROC on Taiwan, and after Washington switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979 by the US One China policy, which acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwan’s administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Disregarding this history, as the US is attempting to do, will surely initiate some defence reaction on the side of China to affirm its sovereignty.
However, this history was undermined since Taiwan claimed to democratise in the 1990s and China has grown ever more belligerent. Furthermore, it is well documented that the Biden administration, following the Trump presidency, has made subtle changes in the way it deals with Taipei, such as loosening restrictions on US officials meeting Taiwanese officials – this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Biden’s words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan – another statement that has provoked China.
Pelosi, in her private space, would know that her actions amount to provocation of China. This act of aggression by the USA seriously undermines the virtues of sovereignty and territorial integrity which has a huge potential to destabilize not only the Taiwan Strait but the whole of the Asia- Pacific region. The Americans know very well that their provocative behavior is deliberately invoking the spirit of separatism masqueraded as “Taiwan independence”. The US is misled to think that by supporting separatism of Taiwan from China that would give them an edge over China in a geopolitics. This is what one Chinese diplomat said this week: “The critical point is if every country put their One-China policy into practice with sincerity, with no compromise, is going to guarantee the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, that China, in a natural response revealed plans for unprecedented military exercises near the island, prompting fears of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the entire Asia-Pacific region. The world community must promote and foster peace, this may be achieved when international laws are respected. It may also happen when nations respect the sovereignty of another. China may be in a better space because it is well capacitated to stake its territorial integrity, what about a small nation, if this happens to it?
As to why military exercises by Beijing; it is an expected response because China was provoked by the actions of Pelosi. To fortify this position, Chinese President, Xi signed a legal basis for China’s People’s Liberation Army to “safeguard China’s national sovereignty, security and development interests”. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to “prevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard China’s overseas investments, projects and personnel. It then follows that President Xi’s administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part.” Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The People’s Liberation Army has made it clear that it has firepower that covers all of Taiwan, and it can strike wherever it wants. This sentiments have been attributed to Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Navy Research Institute. Zheng further said, “We got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces.” This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijing’s military exercises will certainly shake Taiwan’s confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwan’s central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As China’s military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit China’s Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly stressed that the UN remains committed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. The centerpiece is the one-China principle, namely, there is but one China in the world, the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is a part of China. It must be noted that the US and the US-led NATO countries have selectively applied international law, this has been going on unabated. There is a plethora of actions that have collapsed several states after they were attacked under the pretext of the so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction illuminating them as threats – and sometimes even without any valid reason. to blatantly launch military strikes and even unleash wars on sovereign countrie
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.”
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties — ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswana’s democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogae’s assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values. This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in the Bulela Ditswe dispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswe was an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties – ruling and opposition — have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.
Piracy of all kinds continues to have a massive impact on the global creative industry and the economies of the countries where it thrives.
One of the biggest misconceptions around piracy is that an individual consumer’s piracy activities, especially in a market the size of Botswana’s, is only a drop in the pool of potential losses to the different sectors of the economy piracy affects.
When someone sitting in Gaborone, Botswana logs onto an illegal site to download King Richard online, they don’t imagine that their one download will do anything to the production house’s pocket or make a dent in the actors’ net worth. At best, the sensitivity towards this illegal pirating activity likely only exists when contemplating going about pirating a local musician’s music or a short film produced locally.
The ripple effects of piracy at whatever scale reach far beyond what the average consumer could ever imagine. Figures released by software security and media technology company, Irdeto, show that users in five major African territories made approximately 17,4 million total visits to the top 10 identified piracy sites on the internet.
The economic impact of this on the creative industry alone soars to between 40 and 97.1 billion dollars, according a 2022 Dataprot study. In addition, they estimate that “illegally streamed copyrighted content consumes 24% of global bandwidth”.
As Botswana’s creative industry remains relatively slight on the scale of comparison to industries such as Nollywood and Nilewood where the creative industry contributes a huge proportion to West and East Africa’s respective GDPs, that does not imply that piracy activities in Botswana do not have a similar impact on our economy and the ability of our creative industry to grow.
When individuals make decisions to illegally consume content via internet streaming sites they believe they are saving money for themselves in the name of enjoying content they desire to consume. Although this is a personal choice that remains the prerogative of the consumer, looking beyond the fact that streaming on illegal content sites is piracy, the ripple effect of this decision also has an endless trail of impact where funds which could be used to grow the local creative industry through increased consumption, and revenue which would otherwise be fed back into Botswana’s economy are being diverted.
“Why can’t our local creative industry grow?” “Why don’t we see more home-grown films and shows in Botswana?” are questions constantly posed by those who consume television content in Botswana. The answer to this lies largely in the fact that Botswana’s local content needs an audience in order for it to grow. It needs support from government and entities which are in a position to fund and help the industry scale greater heights.
Any organisational body willing to support and grow the local creative industry needs to exist and operate in an economy which can support its mandates. Content piracy is a cycle that can only be alleviated when consumers make wiser decisions around what they consume and how.
This goes beyond eradicating piracy activities in so far as television content is concerned. This extends to the importation and trade in counterfeit goods, resale of goods and services not intended for resale across the border, outside its jurisdiction, and more. All of these activities stunt the growth of an economy and make it nearly impossible for industries and sectors to propel themselves to places where they can positively impact society and reinvest into the country’s economy.
So what can be done to turn the tide here in Botswana in order to see our local production houses gain the momentum required to produce more, license more and expand their horizons? While those who enforce the law continue to work towards minimizing piracy activities, it’s imperative that as consumers we work to make their efforts easier by being mindful of how our individual actions play a role in preventing the success of our local creative networks and our economy’s growth.
Whether you are pirating a Hollywood Blockbuster, illegally streaming a popular Motswana artist’s music, or smuggling in an illegal decoder to view content restricted to South Africa only, your actions have an impact on how we as a nation will make our mark on the global landscape with local creative productions. Thembi Legwaila is Corporate Affairs Manager, MultiChoice Botswana