The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) this week brought up the state house plot ownership, after committee member and Francistown West Member of Parliament (MP) Ignatius Moswaane enquired as to who owns it.
The legislator asked the Ministry of State President’s Secretary of Public Affairs and Public Administration, Kebonye Moepeng to reveal the owner of the plot which the State House sits on.
In a circuitous but strong way he probed: “even though we are reaching fifty years of independence there are rumours that are making Batswana uneasy, they deprive the Presidency of Batswana’s trust and such rumours have already reached the heavens. Batswana are saying the State House is on someone’s plot and we wonder if it really is a State House.”
Also in coded language and without mention of names, Moepeng responded that she does not know that the State House is on someone’s plot, but that it is one of the assets under her Ministry.
Moswaane came back: “We wanted you to clear this mist and your office to confirm or deny if indeed it is a government asset and whether government is paying rental for the State House?”
Moepeng still held her own replying that she is unfortunately not aware that anyone is paying rental for the State House.
In the sustained back and forth, another PAC member and Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) MP for Tati West, Biggie Butale also questioned Moepeng if she is aware of any Ministry or government department that is paying rental for the State House but she still maintained her response, in the negative.
The unrelenting Moswaane also continued, “These rumours are quite damaging for some people, I believe they are not true but maybe they might be, but you could free us by answering whether they are or they are not.”
In the middle of Moepeng’s intense grilling, PAC member and Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD) President, Ndaba Gaolathe, brought the topic back to the original question about the land on which the State House sits.
Gaolathe reminded Committee members that the State House is not the plot on which it is located, and in other words Moepeng had not said anything about the actual plot ownership.
Moepeng then responded that government housing is under the ambit of Ministry of Lands and Housing and that they are the rightful department that hold such information.
The rumour on the plot on which State House is built is such that the land belongs to the founding President Seretse Khama and lease payment for the plot by government is being channelled to relatives.
It was the first time the incessant rumour which has been popular in opposition party quarters was raised and argued in an official administrative setting.
KEORAPETSE POKES AT STATE BROADCASTER
Meanwhile, Committee member and MP for Selibe Phikwe West Dithapelo Keorapetse shredded the quality of State broadcaster Botswana Television (BTV) describing it as apathetic.
Keorapetse accused BTV of failure to adhere to fundamental principles of journalism such as the right of reply.
“You can switch on BTV any day and be bombarded with a rebuttal to something you have never seen,” he fumed.
The incensed legislator also probed as to why the popular political program Matlhoaphage was canned.
Moepeng however responded that she is quite happy and impressed with the broadcaster’s content and said that a recent study by Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority (BOCRA) has rated it high, before challenging Keorapetse to reveal the study he used to draw his conclusions.
Keorapetse then responded that the academia has written damning papers on the broadcaster and political parties have laid complaints, going as far as the Office of the Ombudsman.
Moepeng then responded that she is not aware of any academic papers and even complaints by political parties. She said that sometimes people complain to BTV staff but the station’s decision makers at times cancel production of some programs to make way for others.
When the high-powered Presidency bureaucrat still maintained that she is not aware of either complaint, in a moment of heated exchange, Keorapetse exploded, following up on why Matlhoaphage was canned.
Lunging at Moepeng, he asked that if indeed she was not aware, why would she not ask Mogomotsi Kaboeamodimo who was seated behind her, as he is the man in charge of the station. He also warned that a time will come when heads will roll and people will answer as the issues are serious.
Butale also said that he also agrees that Matlhoaphage be brought back as it makes it seem that they are afraid of something.
Botswana has made improvements on preventing and ending arbitrary deprivation of liberty, but significant challenges remain in further developing and implementing a legal framework, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said at the end of a visit recently.
Head of the delegation, Elina Steinerte, appreciated the transparency of Botswana for opening her doors to them. Having had full and unimpeded access and visited 19 places of deprivation of liberty and confidentiality interviewing over 100 persons deprived of their liberty.
She mentioned “We commend Botswana for its openness in inviting the Working Group to conduct this visit which is the first visit of the Working Group to the Southern African region in over a decade. This is a further extension of the commitment to uphold international human rights obligations undertaken by Botswana through its ratification of international human rights treaties.”
Another good act Botswana has been praised for is the remission of sentences. Steinerte echoed that the Prisons Act grants remission of one third of the sentence to anyone who has been imprisoned for more than one month unless the person has been sentenced to life imprisonment or detained at the President’s Pleasure or if the remission would result in the discharge of any prisoner before serving a term of imprisonment of one month.
On the other side; The Group received testimonies about the police using excessive force, including beatings, electrocution, and suffocation of suspects to extract confessions. Of which when the suspects raised the matter with the magistrates, medical examinations would be ordered but often not carried out and the consideration of cases would proceed.
“The Group recall that any such treatment may amount to torture and ill-treatment absolutely prohibited in international law and also lead to arbitrary detention. Judicial authorities must ensure that the Government has met its obligation of demonstrating that confessions were given without coercion, including through any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure. Judges should consider inadmissible any statement obtained through torture or ill-treatment and should order prompt and effective investigations into such allegations,” said Steinerte.
One of the group’s main concern was the DIS held suspects for over 48 hours for interviews. Established under the Intelligence and Security Service Act, the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) has powers to arrest with or without a warrant.
The group said the “DIS usually requests individuals to come in for an interview and has no powers to detain anyone beyond 48 hours; any overnight detention would take place in regular police stations.”
The Group was able to visit the DIS facilities in Sebele and received numerous testimonies from persons who have been taken there for interviewing, making it evident that individuals can be detained in the facility even if the detention does not last more than few hours.
Moreover, while arrest without a warrant is permissible only when there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, the evidence received indicates that arrests without a warrant are a rule rather than an exception, in contravention to article 9 of the Covenant.
Even short periods of detention constitute deprivation of liberty when a person is not free to leave at will and in all those instances when safeguards against arbitrary detention are violated, also such short periods may amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The group also learned of instances when persons were taken to DIS for interviewing without being given the possibility to notify their next of kin and that while individuals are allowed to consult their lawyers prior to being interviewed, lawyers are not allowed to be present during the interviews.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention mentioned they will continue engaging in the constructive dialogue with the Government of Botswana over the following months while they determine their final conclusions in relation to the country visit.
Standard Chartered Bank Botswana (SCBB) has informed the government that it will not be accepting new loan applications for the Government Employees Motor Vehicle and Residential Property Advance Scheme (GEMVAS and LAMVAS) facility.
This emerges in a correspondence between Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance Boniface Mphetlhe and some government departments. In a letter he wrote recently to government departments informing them of the decision, Mphetlhe indicated that the Ministry received a request from the Bank to consider reviewing GEMVAS and LAMVAS agreement.
He said: “In summary SCBB requested the following; Government should consider reviewing GEMVAS and LAMVAS interest rate from prime plus 0.5% to prime plus 2%.” The Bank indicated that the review should be both for existing GEMVAS and LAMVAS clients and potential customers going forward.
Mphetlhe said the Bank informed the Ministry that the current GEMVAS and LAMVAS interest rate structure results into them making losses, “as the cost of loa disbursements is higher that their end collections.”
He said it also requested that the loan tenure for the residential property loans to be increased from 20 to 25 years and the loan tenure for new motor vehicles loans to be increased from 60 months to 72 months.
Mphetlhe indicated that the Bank’s request has been duly forwarded to the Directorate of Public Service Management for consideration, since GEMVAS and LAMVAS is a Condition of Service Scheme. He saidthe Bank did also inform the Ministry that if the matter is not resolved by the 6th June, 2022, they would cease receipt of new GEMVAS and LAMVAS loan applications.
“A follow up virtual meeting was held to discuss their resolution and SCB did confirm that they will not be accepting any new loans from GEMVAS and LAMVAS. The decision includes top-up advances,” said Mphetlhe. He advised civil servants to consider applying for loans from other banks.
In a letter addressed to the Ministry, SCBB Chief Executive Officer Mpho Masupe informed theministry that, “Reference is made to your letter dated 18th March 2022 wherein the Ministry had indicated that feedback to our proposal on the above subject is being sought.”
In thesame letter dated 10 May 2022, Masupe stated that the Bank was requesting for an update on the Ministry’s engagements with the relevant stakeholder (Directorate of Public Service Management) and provide an indicative timeline for conclusion.
He said the “SCBB informs the Ministry of its intention to cease issuance of new loans to applicants from 6th June 2022 in absence of any feedback on the matter and closure of the discussions between the two parties.” Previously, Masupe had also had requested the Ministry to consider a review of clause 3 of the agreement which speaks to the interest rate charged on the facilities.
Masupe indicated in the letter dated 21 December 2021 that although all the Banks in the market had signed a similar agreement, subject to amendments that each may have requested. “We would like to suggest that our review be considered individually as opposed to being an industry position as we are cognisant of the requirements of section 25 of the Competition Act of 2018 which discourages fixing of pricing set for consumers,” he said.
He added that,“In this way,clients would still have the opportunity to shop around for more favourable pricing and the other Banks, may if they wish to, similarly, individually approach your office for a review of their pricing to the extent that they deem suitable for their respective organisations.”
Masupe also stated that: “On the issue of our request for the revision of the Interest Rate, we kindly request for an increase from the current rate of prime plus 0.5% to prime plus 2%, with no other increases during the loan period.” The Bank CEO said the rationale for the request to review pricing is due to the current construct of the GEMVAS scheme which is currently structured in a way that is resulting in the Bank making a loss.
“The greater part of the GEMVAS portfolio is the mortgage boo which constitutes 40% of the Bank’s total mortgage portfolio,” said Masupe. He saidthe losses that the Bank is incurring are as a result of the legacy pricing of prime plus 0% as the 1995 agreement which a slight increase in the August 2018 agreement to prime plus 0.5%.
“With this pricing, the GEMVAS portfolio has not been profitable to the Bank, causing distress and impeding its ability to continue to support government employees to buy houses and cars. The portfolio is currently priced at 5.25%,” he said. Masupe said the performance of both the GEMVAS home loan and auto loan portfolios in terms of profitability have become unsustainable for the Bank.
Healso said, when the agreement was signed in August 2018, the prime lending rate was 6.75% which made the pricing in effect at the time sufficient from a profitable perspective. “It has since dropped by a total 1.5%. The funds that are loaned to customers are sourced at a high rate, which now leaves the Bank with marginal profits on the portfolio before factoring in other operational expenses associated with administration of the scheme and after sales care of the portfolio,” said the CEO.