Gaborone was initially built for 5000 people!
Opinions
In deliberating the site of the new capital there were obvious differences among the members of the Legislative Council. The deliberations were thorough and protracted. At the end of it all a vote decided that of the 33 members of the Legislative Council, 22 voted for the capital of Botswana to be located in Gaborone and 11 wanted it located in the center or where there was an abundance of water supplies in places like Mahalapye, Palapye, Shashi or Francistown.
Looking at the circumstances of the time, what appears to have persuaded the majority of the members of the Legislative Council to opt for Gaborone were several advantages found to exist in Gaborone. First there a guarantee of ‘adequate’ water supplies after ‘thorough’ investigations. Second, there was the availability of Crown land which meant that the administration would not have to buy or request land from any of the nearby ethnic groups. Thirdly there were a few humble infrastructural developments in Gaborone such as police, former Assistant Commissioner‘s and Fort Gaberones buildings, running water, a Post Office, railway line and roads. Fourthly, Gaborone was located not too far from six ‘principal’ ethnic groups considered to constitute the bulk of the population of the BP and by that virtue it would be understood to stand for centrality. These factors, together with the time available to identify and build a capital as soon as possible prompted the administration and Legislative Council hurriedly settle for Gaborone.
Persuaded by the arguments of the few members of the Legislative Council of the time who argued against Gaborone as the capital, this paper takes the position that the choice of Gaborone was a grave and expensive error. Obviously, the members who opposed the location of Gaborone were in the minority and that being so, were out-voted, but that did not mean the majority was right, indeed the majority is not always right. A close examination of the factors that led to the establishment of Gaborone as the capital reveals that some these factors were questionable. Perhaps at the time these factors were straight forward, but even then some of the members questioned them at the tme. It is even worse so on hindsight, or fifty years later.
The administration, its Investigating Committee, and the majority of the members of the Legislative Council were convinced that Prof Midgley’s investigations had revealed that there was adequate water in the Notwane dam and that some additional dams could be built in and around Gaborone. Examining other sites, could it be realistically said that the little Notwane River could be found to have more water than say, the Mahalapye, Shashi or even the Tati Rivers and therefore suitable to sustain the capital of a country? Messers Taylor, Shaw, van Gass and predicted at the time, that the water was more in the north than in the south and that in fifty years time the north would supply the south with water. But at what cost it may be asked.
Another advantage that attracted the administration and the majority of the members of the Legislative Council to the Gaborone site was the availability of crown land. How much crown land was available and what consideration there was for expansion in the future was not immediately clear. The minority members of the Legislative Council did point out that Gaborone as a capital had limited land in terms of expansion, predicting at the time that in the future it would not be able to expand to the north, east, south, or west without encroaching on ‘tribal’ lands. Today, fifty years later, that prediction could not have been more on the mark.
The decision to locate the capital in Gaborone was in part influenced by the fact that it was accessible to the six ‘principal’ groups which factor assumed that most of the population of the country was in the southern part of the country. That assumption appears to have been erroneous as the table below gives a picture of what the population of the south compared to the north was like in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Related to the population factor was that the administration’s Investigating Committee had suggested that the capital be built for 5,000 people out of a population less than 600,500 people for the whole country. Granted at the time it could have been appropriate, but 5,000 was an awfully small figure especially that there was no indication or specification that the capital would move any time soon. It is baffling that a capital of any country should be planned around a small figure such as 5,000 as if its population, and that of the country for that matter, would forever remain dormant.
The infrastructure and communication did not make Gaborone particularly stand out as advantageous compared to say, Lobatse, Mahalapye, and Francistown. All the three were accessible by roads and rail. Small commercial and industrial centers were available in these places. Also available in all the tree places were humble buildings which included police stations and running water. It would appear that communications and infrastructure were not peculiar advantages to Gaborone.
The decision to find an appropriate place for the location of the capital of Botswana appeared to have been taken in a rush on the part of both the administration and the members of the L egislative Council.
In their deliberations about the site of the new capital, member after member talked about the short space of time within which the location of capital had to be identified73*. The apparent ‘ hurry’ was tied to the financial issue. Botswana then was known to have been one of the poorest countries in the world, dependent on subsistence farming and agriculture and to a very large extent to the British government’s grants-in-aid. It goes without saying therefore that by 1964-65 the country had no money to absorb the expenses of the movement from Mahikeng, let alone build a new capital. Mention has already been made that the British government had pledged the sum of R4 million for the movement of the capital. If the administration and the Legislative Council members delayed in identifying the site for the capital for anything from one to three years, then there was no guarantee that the British government would hold its pledge for that long. Fear of losing that opportunity, compounded by the fact that the movement of
Head Quarters was long overdue any way, were in the minds of the administration and members of the Legislative Council. In those circumstances, the possibility of hurriedly making a decision on the site for a new capital could easily lead to miscalculations and ‘grave and expensive errors’.
Conclusion
The choice of Gaborone as a capital, like other capitals of the world, was influenced by several factors.
Top among those was the availability of water. In the case of Gaborone sufficient water was found in the Notwane River where, by 1965, a dam had been built and ready to supply the new capital. Land was also a determining factor in the choice of the capital. Gaborone had crown land, which meant that the land would not have to be bought, lent, borrowed from, or given by, the ethnic groups in the precincts of Gaborone. It also was thought to be close six of the eight principal ethnic groups suggesting that the location of the six ethnic groups determined the density of the population of the whole territory. The capital was built for 5,000 people. At the time it could be argued that it was practical, considering that the population of the entire country was less than 500,000. Related to the population was the issue of centrality and accessibility of the capital. Given the situation of the time, the presence and locality of the six ethnic groups, determined, to the extent possible, the centrality of Gaborone in relation to the population of the country. Communications and infrastructure also determined the choice of the capital as Gaborone had a few administrative buildings set up during colonial times, the Post Office, a rail line and roads although they were not paved.
Taking into consideration the above factors, the recommendations of the Investigating Committee were taken to the representative body of Legislative Council for deliberation and owning the decision to locate the site of the capital. The deliberations were protracted and thorough, but not overwhelmingly unanimous. The majority of the members approved Gaborone as the new capital while one third, eleven out of thirty three, opposed the capital ‘s location in Gaborone citing several disadvantages about Gaborone and doubting the thoroughness of the Investigating Committee, suggesting other places where the capital could be located.
This paper takes the position that while the choice of Gaborone as a capital was dictated by the circumstances of the time, it would appear that that decision was somewhat rushed. It is difficult to be convinced that the waters found in the Notwane River could have been more adequate than those of the Mahalapye, Shashi and Tati Rivers. The crown land that was available in Gaborone appears not to have had a long term plan for expansion as presently it is difficult to expand to any direction without infringing upon ethnic rights; in addition, it baffles the mind why a capital of a country could be built for 5,000 people only as if it was guaranteed that its population would forever remain dormant. The paper has demonstrated that the population of the country was not denser in the south because of the location of the six principal ethnic groups, and that the assumption that the population was more in the south was inaccurate. By the same token the location of Gaborone could not be said to have been central and therefore accessible to the rest of the population. Located in the south eastern part of the country, Gaborone’s centrality and accessibility are not conspicuously obvious. The infrastructure and communication lines were available in other places other than Gaborone. Lobatse, Mahalapye, Palapye, and Francistown were linked by rail and roads so that that prerogative was not only for Gaborone. Finally the finance issue put pressure on the members of Legislative Council to hurriedly locate the capital at the expense of investigations which would take a little bit more time but nonetheless thorough. Some members of the Legislative Council did mention that they preferred thoroughness than rushing to take a decision that would not only be a miscalculation but ‘a grave and expensive error’. It is arguable whether if the capital had been located elsewhere other than Gaborone so much monies would spent, and are continuing be spent, on ferrying water supplies to sustain the capital.
this presentation by Prof Part Mgadla on the topic: 'A Very Grave and Expensive Error'? : The choice of a new site for the Capital of Botswana 1958-65 to generate interest in you as we celebrate 50 years of independence. Thepresenters are coming up with arguably new information about Botswana.
The paper was presented and discussed at the University of Botswana on Thursday as part of the ongoing BOT50 lecture series
Opinions
Fuelling Change: The Evolving Dynamics of the Oil and Gas Industry
The Oil and Gas industry has undergone several significant developments and changes over the last few years. Understanding these developments and trends is crucial towards better appreciating how to navigate the engagement in this space, whether directly in the energy space or in associated value chain roles such as financing.
Here, we explore some of the most notable global events and trends and the potential impact or bearing they have on the local and global market.
Governments and companies around the world have been increasingly focused on transitioning towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. This shift is motivated by concerns about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Africa, including Botswana, is part of these discussions, as we work to collectively ensure a greener and more sustainable future. Indeed, this is now a greater priority the world over. It aligns closely with the increase in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing being observed. ESG investing has become increasingly popular, and many investors are now looking for companies that are focused on sustainability and reducing their carbon footprint. This trend could have significant implications for the oil and fuel industry, which is often viewed as environmentally unsustainable. Relatedly and equally key are the evolving government policies. Government policies and regulations related to the Oil and Gas industry are likely to continue evolving with discussions including incentives for renewable energy and potentially imposing stricter regulations on emissions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also played a strong role. Over the last two years, the pandemic had a profound impact on the Oil and Gas industry (and fuel generally), leading to a significant drop in demand as travel and economic activity slowed down. As a result, oil prices plummeted, with crude oil prices briefly turning negative in April 2020. Most economies have now vaccinated their populations and are in recovery mode, and with the recovery of the economies, there has been recovery of oil prices; however, the pace and sustainability of recovery continues to be dependent on factors such as emergence of new variants of the virus.
This period, which saw increased digital transformation on the whole, also saw accelerated and increased investment in technology. The Oil and Gas industry is expected to continue investing in new digital technologies to increase efficiency and reduce costs. This also means a necessary understanding and subsequent action to address the impacts from the rise of electric vehicles. The growing popularity of electric vehicles is expected to reduce demand for traditional gasoline-powered cars. This has, in turn, had an impact on the demand for oil.
Last but not least, geopolitical tensions have played a tremendous role. Geopolitical tensions between major oil-producing countries can and has impacted the supply of oil and fuel. Ongoing tensions in the Middle East and between the US and Russia could have an impact on global oil prices further, and we must be mindful of this.
On the home front in Botswana, all these discussions are relevant and the subject of discussion in many corporate and even public sector boardrooms. Stanbic Bank Botswana continues to take a lead in supporting the Oil and Gas industry in its current state and as it evolves and navigates these dynamics. This is through providing financing to support Oil and Gas companies’ operations, including investments in new technologies. The Bank offers risk management services to help oil and gas companies to manage risks associated with price fluctuations, supply chain disruptions and regulatory changes. This includes offering hedging products and providing advice on risk management strategies.
Advisory and support for sustainability initiatives that the industry undertakes is also key to ensuring that, as companies navigate complex market conditions, they are more empowered to make informed business decisions. It is important to work with Oil and Gas companies to develop and implement sustainability strategies, such as reducing emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy. This is key to how partners such as Stanbic Bank work to support the sector.
Last but not least, Stanbic Bank stands firmly in support of Botswana’s drive in the development of the sector with the view to attain better fuel security and reduce dependence risk on imported fuel. This is crucial towards ensuring a stronger, stabler market, and a core aspect to how we can play a role in helping drive Botswana’s growth. Continued understanding, learning, and sustainable action are what will help ensure the Oil and Gas sector is supported towards positive, sustainable and impactful growth in a manner that brings social, environmental and economic benefit.
Loago Tshomane is Manager, Client Coverage, Corporate and Investment Banking (CIB), Stanbic Bank Botswana
Opinions
Brands are important
So, the conclusion is brands are important. I start by concluding because one hopes this is a foregone conclusion given the furore that erupts over a botched brand. If a fast food chef bungles a food order, there’d be possibly some isolated complaint thrown. However, if the same company’s marketing expert or agency cooks up a tasteless brand there is a country-wide outcry. Why? Perhaps this is because brands affect us more deeply than we care to understand or admit. The fact that the uproar might be equal parts of schadenfreude, black twitter-esque criticism and, disappointment does not take away from the decibel of concern raised.
A good place to start our understanding of a brand is naturally by defining what a brand is. Marty Neumier, the genius who authored The Brand Gap, offers this instructive definition – “A brand is a person’s gut feel about a product or service”. In other words, a brand is not what the company says it is. It is what the people feel it is. It is the sum total of what it means to them. Brands are perceptions. So, brands are defined by individuals not companies. But brands are owned by companies not individuals. Brands are crafted in privacy but consumed publicly. Brands are communal. Granted, you say. But that doesn’t still explain why everybody and their pet dog feel entitled to jump in feet first into a brand slug-fest armed with a hot opinion. True. But consider the following truism.
Brands are living. They act as milestones in our past. They are signposts of our identity. Beacons of our triumphs. Indexes of our consumption. Most importantly, they have invaded our very words and world view. Try going for just 24 hours without mentioning a single brand name. Quite difficult, right? Because they live among us they have become one of us. And we have therefore built ‘brand bonds’ with them. For example, iPhone owners gather here. You love your iPhone. It goes everywhere. You turn to it in moments of joy and when we need a quick mood boost. Notice how that ‘relationship’ started with desire as you longingly gazed upon it in a glossy brochure. That quickly progressed to asking other people what they thought about it. Followed by the zero moment of truth were you committed and voted your approval through a purchase. Does that sound like a romantic relationship timeline. You bet it does. Because it is. When we conduct brand workshops we run the Brand Loyalty ™ exercise wherein we test people’s loyalty to their favourite brand(s). The results are always quite intriguing. Most people are willing to pay a 40% premium over the standard price for ‘their’ brand. They simply won’t easily ‘breakup’ with it. Doing so can cause brand ‘heart ache’. There is strong brand elasticity for loved brands.
Now that we know brands are communal and endeared, then companies armed with this knowledge, must exercise caution and practise reverence when approaching the subject of rebranding. It’s fragile. The question marketers ought to ask themselves before gleefully jumping into the hot rebranding cauldron is – Do we go for an Evolution (partial rebrand) or a Revolution(full rebrand)? An evolution is incremental. It introduces small but significant changes or additions to the existing visual brand. Here, think of the subtle changes you’ve seen in financial or FMCG brands over the decades. Evolution allows you to redirect the brand without alienating its horde of faithful followers. As humans we love the familiar and certain. Change scares us. Especially if we’ve not been privy to the important but probably blinkered ‘strategy sessions’ ongoing behind the scenes. Revolutions are often messy. They are often hard reset about-turns aiming for a total new look and ‘feel’.
Hard rebranding is risky business. History is littered with the agony of brands large and small who felt the heat of public disfavour. In January 2009, PepsiCo rebranded the Tropicana. When the newly designed package hit the shelves, consumers were not having it. The New York Times reports that ‘some of the commenting described the new packaging as ‘ugly’ ‘stupid’. They wanted their old one back that showed a ripe orange with a straw in it. Sales dipped 20%. PepsiCo reverted to the old logo and packaging within a month. In 2006 Mastercard had to backtrack away from it’s new logo after public criticism, as did Leeds United, and the clothing brand Gap. AdAge magazine reports that critics most common sentiment about the Gap logo was that it looked like something a child had created using a clip-art gallery. Botswana is no different. University of Botswana had to retreat into the comfort of the known and accepted heritage strong brand. Sir Ketumile Masire Teaching Hospital was badgered with complaints till it ‘adjusted’ its logo.
So if the landscape of rebranding is so treacherous then whey take the risk? Companies need to soberly assess they need for a rebrand. According to the fellows at Ignyte Branding a rebrand is ignited by the following admissions :
Our brand name no longer reflects our company’s vision.
We’re embarrassed to hand out our business cards.
Our competitive advantage is vague or poorly articulated.
Our brand has lost focus and become too complex to understand. Our business model or strategy has changed.
Our business has outgrown its current brand.
We’re undergoing or recently underwent a merger or acquisition. Our business has moved or expanded its geographic reach.
We need to disassociate our brand from a negative image.
We’re struggling to raise our prices and increase our profit margins. We want to expand our influence and connect to new audiences. We’re not attracting top talent for the positions we need to fill. All the above are good reasons to rebrand.
The downside to this debacle is that companies genuinely needing to rebrand might be hesitant or delay it altogether. The silver lining I guess is that marketing often mocked for its charlatans, is briefly transformed from being the Archilles heel into Thanos’ glove in an instant.
So what does a company need to do to safely navigate the rebranding terrain? Companies need to interrogate their brand purpose thoroughly. Not what they think they stand for but what they authentically represent when seen through the lens of their team members. In our Brand Workshop we use a number of tools to tease out the compelling brand truth. This section always draws amusing insights. Unfailingly, the top management (CEO & CFO)always has a vastly different picture of their brand to the rest of their ExCo and middle management, as do they to the customer-facing officer. We have only come across one company that had good internal alignment. Needless to say that brand is doing superbly well.
There is need a for brand strategies to guide the brand. One observes that most brands ‘make a plan’ as they go along. Little or no deliberate position on Brand audit, Customer research, Brand positioning and purpose, Architecture, Messaging, Naming, Tagline, Brand Training and may more. A brand strategy distils why your business exists beyond making money – its ‘why’. It defines what makes your brand what it is, what differentiates it from the competition and how you want your customers to perceive it. Lacking a brand strategy disadvantages the company in that it appears soul-less and lacking in personality. Naturally, people do not like to hang around humans with nothing to say. A brand strategy understands the value proposition. People don’t buy nails for the nails sake. They buy nails to hammer into the wall to hang pictures of their loved ones. People don’t buy make up because of its several hues and shades. Make up is self-expression. Understanding this arms a brand with an iron clad clad strategy on the brand battlefield.
But perhaps you’ve done the important research and strategy work. It’s still possible to bungle the final look and feel. A few years ago one large brand had an extensive strategy done. Hopes were high for a top tier brand reveal. The eventual proposed brand was lack-lustre. I distinctly remember, being tasked as local agency to ‘land’ the brand and we outright refused. We could see this was a disaster of epic proportions begging to happen. The brand consultants were summoned to revise the logo. After a several tweaks and compromises the brand landed. It currently exists as one of the country’s largest brands. Getting the logo and visual look right is important. But how does one know if they are on the right path? Using the simile of a brand being a person – The answer is how do you know your outfit is right? It must serve a function, be the right fit and cut, it must be coordinated and lastly it must say something about you. So it is possible to bath in a luxurious bath gel, apply exotic lotion, be facebeat and still somehow wear a faux pas outfit. Avoid that.
Another suggestion is to do the obvious. Pre-test the logo and its look and feel on a cross section of your existing and prospective audience. There are tools to do this. Their feedback can save you money, time and pain. Additionally one must do another obvious check – use Google Image to verify the visual outcome and plain Google search to verify the name. These are so obvious they are hopefully for gone conclusions. But for the brands that have gone ahead without them, I hope you have not concluded your brand journeys as there is a world of opportunity waiting to be unlocked with the right brand strategy key.
Cliff Mada is Head of ArmourGetOn Brand Consultancy, based in Gaborone and Cape Town.
cliff@armourgeton.com
Opinions
The case for Botswana to ratify the ACDEG
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is the most comprehensive dataset measuring African governance performance through a wide range of 81 indicators under the categories of Security & Rule of law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations of Economic Opportunity, and Human Development. It employs scores, expressed out of 100, which quantify a country’s performance for each governance measure and ranks, out of 54, in relation to the 54 African countries.
The 2022 IIAG Overall Governance score is 68.1 and ranks Botswana at number 5 in Africa. In 2019 Botswana was ranked 2nd with an overall score of 73.3. That is a sharp decline. The best-performing countries are Mauritius, Seychelles, Tunisia, and Cabo Verde, in that order. A glance at the categories shows that Botswana is in third place in Africa on the Security and Rule of law; ninth in the Participation, Rights & Inclusion Category – indicating a shrinking participatory environment; eighth for Foundations of Economic Opportunity category; and fifth in the Human Development category.
The 2022 IIAG comes to a sweeping conclusion: Governments are less accountable and transparent in 2021 than at any time over the last ten years; Higher GDP does not necessarily indicate better governance; rule of law has weakened in the last five years; Democratic backsliding in Africa has accelerated since 2018; Major restrictions on freedom of association and assembly since 2012. Botswana is no exception to these conclusions. In fact, a look at the 10-year trend shows a major challenge. While Botswana remains in the top 5 of the best-performing countries in Africa, there are signs of decline, especially in the categories of Human Development and Security & Rule of law.
I start with this picture to show that Botswana is no longer the poster child for democracy, good governance, and commitment to the rule of law that it once was. In fact, to use the term used in the IIAG, Botswana is experiencing a “democratic backsliding.”
The 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) had Botswana at 55/ 100, the lowest ever score recorded by Botswana dethroning Botswana as Africa’s least corrupt country to a distant third place, where it was in 2019 with a CPI of 61/100. (A score closer to zero denotes the worst corrupt and a score closer to 100 indicates the least corrupt country). The concern here is that while other African states are advancing in their transparency and accountability indexes, Botswana is backsliding.
The Transitional National Development Plan lists participatory democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, as key “deliverables,” if you may call those deliverables. If indeed Botswana is committed to these principles, she must ratify the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance is the African Union’s principal policy document for advancing democratic governance in African Union member states. The ACDEG embodies the continent’s commitment to a democratic agenda and set the standards upon which countries agreed to be held accountable. The Charter was adopted in 2007 and came into force a decade ago, in 2012.
Article 2 of the Charter details its objectives among others as to a) Promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights; b) Promote and protect the independence of the judiciary; c) Promote the establishment of the necessary conditions to foster citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs; d) Promote gender balance and equality in the governance and development processes.
The Charter emphasizes certain principles through which member states must uphold: Citizen Participation, Accountable Institutions, Respect for Human Rights, Adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law, Respect for the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional order, Entrenchment of democratic Principles, Separation of Powers, Respect for the Judiciary, Independence and impartiality of electoral bodies, best practice in the management of elections. These are among the top issues that Batswana have been calling for, that they be entrenched in the new Constitution.
The ACDEG is a revolutionary document. Article 3 of the ACDEG, sets guidance on the principles that must guide the implementation of the Charter among them: Effective participation of citizens in democratic and development processes and in the governance of public affairs; Promotion of a system of government that is representative; Holding of regular, transparent, free and fair elections; Separation of powers; Promotion of gender equality in public and private institutions and others.
Batswana have been calling for laws that make it mandatory for citizen participation in public affairs, more so, such calls have been amplified in the just-ended “consultative process” into the review of the Constitution of Botswana. Many scholars, academics, and Batswana, in general, have consistently made calls for a constitution that provides for clear separation of powers to prevent concentration of power in one branch, in Botswana’s case, the Executive, and provide for effective checks and balances. Other countries, like Kenya, have laws that promote gender equality in public and private institutions inscribed in their constitutions. The ACDEG could be a useful advocacy tool for the promotion of gender equality.
Perhaps more relevant to Botswana’s situation now is Article 10 of the Charter. Given how the constitutional review process unfolded, the numerous procedural mistakes and omissions, the lack of genuine consultations, the Charter principles could have provided a direction, if Botswana was party to the Charter. “State Parties shall ensure that the process of amendment or revision of their constitution reposes on national consensus, obtained, if need be, through referendum,” reads part of Article 10, giving clear clarity, that the Constitution belong to the people.
With the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance in hand, ratified, and also given the many shortfalls in the current constitution, Batswana can have a tool in hand, not only to hold the government accountable but also a tool for measuring aspirations and shortfalls of our governance institutional framework.
Botswana has not signed, nor has it acceded or ratified the ACDEG. The time to ratify the ACDEG is now. Our Movement, Motheo O Mosha Society, with support from the Democracy Works Foundation and The Charter Project Africa, will run a campaign to promote, popularise and advocate for the ratification of the Charter (#RatifytheCharter Campaign). The initiative is co-founded by the European Union. The Campaign is implemented with the support of our sister organizations: Global Shapers Community – Gaborone Hub, #FamilyMeetingBW, Botswana Center for Public Integrity, Black Roots Organization, Economic Development Forum, Molao-Matters, WoTech Foundation, University of Botswana Political Science Society, Young Minds Africa and Branding Akosua.
Ratifying the Charter would reaffirm Botswana’s commitment to upholding strong democratic values, and respect for constitutionalism, and promote the rule of law and political accountability. Join us in calling the Government of Botswana to #RatifyTheCharter.
*Morena MONGANJA is the Chairperson of Motheo O Mosha society; a grassroots movement advocating for a new Constitution for Botswana. Contact: socialcontractbw@gmail.com or WhatsApp 77 469 362.