An internal communication of the Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) detailing the reasons behind disaffiliating from the Botswana Federation of Public Sector Unions (BOFEPUSU) has been leaked, and it categorically states that “BOPEU and BOFEPUSU” can never work together because they believe in two different things.”
BOPEU is a founding member, alongside Manual Workers Union (NACLGPWU) or “MWU”, of Botswana Federation of Public Sector Unions (BOFEPUSU). However, in recent months and years the working relationship between BOPEU and BOFEPUSU has ‘irretrievably broken down’ , as illustrated in the following incidents and developments. In December 2015 BOPEU Congress resolved to disaffiliate from BOFEPUSU and to carry out due diligence on Botswana Federation of Trade Unions (BFTU), before a final decision to affiliate to BFTU could be made.
BOFEPUSU Congress of February 2015
The leaked BOPEU communication points to several issues that have arisen which caused a serious strain on relations between BOPEU and BOFEPUSU, “which relations are now irreconcilable”.
Congress Call – BOPEU says According to clause 188.8.131.52 of the BOFEPUSU constitution the 2015 Congress should have been held in August 2014, with the Congress call issued 90 days prior (i.e. in June 2014), accompanied by an Agenda. BOPEU contends that BOFEPUSU Executive delayed the holding of Congress without any valid reason (e.g. valid reason could be pending audit), until BOPEU threatened, in October 2014, to withhold subscriptions as leverage to compel BOFEPUSU to obey its own constitution. Had it not been for BOPEU’s intervention, in writing and threatening, that a Call to Congress was made by BOFEPUSU Secretary General in December 2014 for February 2015.
“This deliberate avoidance of Congress caused a lot of animosity, political skirmishes and strain on relations between BOPEU and BOFEPUSU. It also indicates the administrative and organisational state of BOFEPUSU,” reads the document.
BOPEU Motions – In the view of BOPEU, their written motions were not allowed (not permitted for discussion) because they were submitted late, even though the BOFEPUSU constitution allows even for motions from the floor of Congress (special resolutions). They state that most of the motions sought to improve governance and administration of BOFEPUSU and for a review of BOFEPUSU constitution.
“The rejection of the motions illustrated how BOFEPUSU regards BOPEU’s contributions – that BOPEU’s contributions should be excluded at all costs.”
Annual Audits – BOPEU says according to clauses 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 of the BOFEPUSU constitution the Secretary General is responsible for “preparation and circulation of financial annual report…and circulation of auditor’s report”. Clause 14.7 makes the carrying out of audits mandatory. BOFEPUSU Executive and secretariat failed to present to Congress Audited Financial Report (or at least Interim financials), in violation of its own constitution and of Section 42 of TUOEA. In addition to delegates’ calling for audited statements at Congress, BOPEU says it has written several letters to BOFEPUSU, in response to BOFEPUSU’s demands for funding, in which BOPEU sought explanation as to why BOFEPUSU cannot comply with the law and its own constitution with respect to auditing. No responses were received.
“It must be noted that Audited financials are required as a main component of Annual Returns to the Registrar of Trade Unions and are a valid ground for de-registration. The old Executive has admitted publicly that BOFEPUSU never carried out an Audit of its accounts since it was formed in 2008. As a result of BOFEPUSU’s continuous failure to account, BOPEU NoB, NEC and GC resolved to withhold monthly subscriptions to BOFEPUSU, to try to compel BOFEPUSU to account. BOPEU’s monthly subs amount to P28,000 pm or P336,000 per annum,” reads the BOPEU internal document.
“BOPEU delegates’ request for audited financials was regarded as a provocation or because “BOPEU is a sell-out”. There was and is still no remorse about failure to account and it seems the omission was deliberate,” concludes the report.
Minutes of 2012 Congress – The Secretary of the BOFEPUSU Executive also failed to submit minutes of 2012 Congress. Likewise, BOPEU delegates’ request for minutes was also regarded as a provocation or because BOEPU is a “sell-out”. Again, it seems the omission was deliberate and to date there is no official record of the 2012 Congress.
Eligibility of Union employees to hold positions on BOFEPUSU Executive: BOPEU delegates tried to raise the issue of whether union employees were eligible to stand for union political positions in the BOFEPUSU Executive, in light of Section 21 of the TUEOA. Again BOPEU’s raising of the issue was viewed as a provocation, especially of Manual Workers Union (MWU), which nominated four (4) of its employees into the Executive. Yet this issue has long term implications on the legality of BOFEPUSU itself, as currently more than half of the BOFEPUSU Executive are union employees. Section 21(1), (2) and (3) of TUEOA read thus;
“No person shall be admitted to membership of a trade union unless he is an employee in an industry with which the trade union is directly concerned. No employee of a trade union shall be admitted to membership of the trade union. Upon a member of a trade union becoming an employee of the trade union, he shall immediately cease to be a member of the trade union.
BOPEU argues that the majority of persons allowed to stand and who currently occupy positions in the BOFEPUSU Executive did not qualify to stand or to be elected. They poke at the eligibility of Mr Johnson Pikinini Motshwarakgole – Secretary for Labour Affairs – Employee of MWU; Mr Samuel Molaodi – Secretary for Education Affairs – Employee of MWU; Mr Simon Kgaoganang – Secretary for Gender and Women’s Affairs – Employee of MWU; Mr Johannes Tshukudu – President – Employee of BTU; and Mr Ketlhalefile Motshegwa – Deputy Secretary General – Employee of BLLAHWU.
BOPEU says since union employees are not employed in the industry with which the trade union is concerned (i.e. not workers) they are not eligible to be members and are precluded from paying membership/subscription fees. The above persons are not “members” or “officers” of the affiliate trade unions.
“Ironically, the same reasoning was used to remove the BLLAHWU President from office (i.e. not paying subscription). Effectively this renders BOFEPUSU an unlawful organisation, saved only by Government’s (Registrar’s) inaction, whether deliberate or due to ignorance.
When this matter was raised at the 2015 Congress some of the above persons demonstrated that they are aware of the provisions of the law and the constitution. The prolonged illegality is therefore deliberate and self-serving.”
“Rather than being embroiled into a political and legal battle it is easier (and wiser) for BOPEU to disaffiliate rather than go through the legal and political battle with BOFEPUSU Executive. It is not worth it,” reads the leaked document.
BOPEU candidates’ nominations and Elections: BOPEU says at nomination time, there was a pattern of predetermined outcomes to reject all BOPEU nominations. BOPEU’s exclusion was also demonstrated in songs composed about BOPEU by delegates from other unions and a general hostile environment.
“The atmosphere was a clear, practical demonstration that BOPEU was unwanted in the family. The celebrations thereafter on social media of how BOPEU has been white washed also added to the confirmation of the attitude.”
Internal relations in the old BOFEPUSU Executive: According to BOPEU, prior to Congress there was a deliberate undermining of the then BOFEPUSU President (BOPEU VP) as an extension of BOPEU’s marginalisation. Some members of the BOFEPUSU Executive held official CEC meetings without her knowledge and participation. One such meeting held at Airport junction mall resolved to make a press release about BOFEPUSU’s endorsement of UDC. When she made a Press Release to correct the position the Secretary General made a counter statement.
“These CEC intra-conflicts also contributed to the current situation. The ‘apology’ by BOFEPUSU Secretary General at the 2014 Annual Convention did not address the fundamental issues but just an appeal to let ‘bygones be bygones’. No attempt was made to reconcile differences. Instead in 2015 when similar differences have arisen, BOFEPUSU’s Secretary General expresses confidence that BOPEU Congress will agree with them. This kind of self-assurance takes BOPEU members for granted,” reads the internal communique.
Bargaining Council is another area of contention, which has brought irreconcilable difference, is the issue of membership of the Bargaining Council. BOPEU says when the term of office of the previous Council lapsed, BOPEU sought to have its members replaced.
“The view in BOPEU has been that this provided an opportunity to replace political officers with independent skilled negotiators who will have mandates but not vested interest, to reduce political controversy, which was bogging down progress in the Council. It also brought an opportunity to have Government team also replaced. However, BOFEPUSU negotiators wanted to maintain status quo. Their interpretation of the PSBC constitution coincided with that of the employer party,” BOPEU says.
UNIGEM and other investments – Another cause of differences concerned UNIGEM, says BOPEU. UNIGEM was making losses in a row, at a time when the contract was coming to an end.
“By its own projections UNIGEM was projected to make an accumulated loss of P7m in over 5 years. Yet BOFEPUSU stated that UNIGEM was a profit making entity and spread malicious rumours that BOPEU was going to be given the tender alone as a reward for supporting for BDP in the 2014 elections, through a deal with a certain Mr Chitube, who was being prepared to be the next BDP President. Recently (November 2015) BTU stated the same issue in its annual report, that UNIGEM losses have affected the balance sheet of their investment arm, More Power Investments (Pty) Ltd. BTU was not accused of any BDP links despite holding the same view about UNIGEM as a loss-making entity,” reads the BOPEU document.
“Why was BOPEU expected to carry on with a loss making entity? On the hand BOPEU has not disinvested from BOTUSAFE, which is another joint venture with some BOFEPUSU affiliates, because it is making profit.”
Political affiliation – BOPEU says another source of irreconcilable difference is how each organisation handles the issue of political alignment and /or UDC endorsement. BOPEU says its position is based on a Convention resolution that the union should not align or affiliate to any political party. Though this position is reviewable by Convention or Congress it is binding on BOPEU Executive (NoB and NEC). Any BOPEU official who expresses this position is therefore speaking on behalf of all members.
“On the contrary the group, which now controls BOFEPUSU Executive, prefer that such decisions be regarded as operational rather than policy decisions. They held this same view before the Congress which they continue to maintain: that the issue of political alignment can be changed at any time. Yet they do not have a mandate from members giving them latitude to decide on such a matter,” reads the BOPEU document.
According to the document Clause 3 of BOFEPUSU constitution states that “Congress shall be the sole decision making body of the federation….every matter for consideration by Congress shall be on motion duly seconded…”. It is this very democratic procedure that the dominant group in BOFEPUSU Executive thwarted at the 2015 Congress by blocking BOPEU motions.
“While BOPEU believes that the issue of political alignment is a major policy decision that cannot be made by a few individuals on behalf of members, BOFEPUSU Executive believes that not only do they have a right to make that decision, they could also change it as many times as they wish. The least that BOFEPUSU could do is to refer this contentious issue to the General Council (GC). Thus, the Central Executive has abrogated itself the powers of both the GC and Congress.”
BOPEU says this is one of the main causes of irreconcilable difference between BOPEU and BOFEPUSU. “At the core is the issue of governance, of a federation leadership which believes it should make decisions on behalf of members versus an affiliate which is democratically controlled by members. Not only is conflict inevitable but will be endless.”
Botswana Football Association (BFA) leadership appears to be bowing down to Nicolas Zakhem’s football pressure. The development comes to the open roughly 24 hours after the Gaborone United director publicly labelled Maclean Letshwiti and his committee failures for deciding to chop five premier league clubs under the pretext of club licensing disqualification.
As early as Wednesday noon, the BFA emergency committee met with one agenda item to discuss the possibility of reinstating the clubs. This publication gathers that the committee saw it fit to pardon the five clubs without entertaining a second thought. The committee even invited the clubs to the meeting, sources say.
Late last month, the five teams were disqualified from playing in the premier league, pending the appeal outcome. The teams are Notwane, Extension Gunners, BR Highlanders, Mogoditshane Fighters, together with Gilport Lions. The immediate decision by BFA follows what Zakhem had said and advised that it was wrong to chop clubs given the COVID-19 situation in the country.
Unbeknownst to BFA leadership, observers stress that Zakhem exerted public pressure and influenced them to change tone without asking. At the meeting, BFA president Maclean Letshwiti, his vices, Marshlow Motlogelwa and Masego Ntshingane, Aryl Ralebala, the Botswana Football League (BFL) chairman, together with Alec Fela, an ordinary member in the now stubborn NEC.
However, the reactive move by the association to reinstate the clubs is highly welcomed in certain quarters, but it also appears to have left a permanent scar, especially at BFL. As things stand, the general feeling on the ground is to oust chairman Ralebala for failing to defend these clubs before the eyes of President Letshwiti.
This publication has intercepted an ongoing petition to unseat Ralebala and his deputies from the BFL board. Strange enough, the signed petition has thus far attracted clubs with household influence in the league itself. GU, Township Rollers, Notwane, Extension Gunners, Police XI are some clubs that have already appended their signatures to have Ralebala removed.
The big clubs are believed to fighting for principle and demand fair governance at BFL. The reality is that these clubs command a large following, and sponsors can always have a say based on their presence.
When approached for clarity, Ralebala said he could not comment on allegations or issues that lack substance. He concedes that he has heard about the rolling petition but is yet to lay his eyes on it. “I have heard about the petition, but I don’t know where it is coming from. I think it is best you ask those who have signed it. My focus is to commence the league and make sure everything is on point,” said Ralebala.
Football observers state that Ralebala, together with Letshwiti, are now faced with a dilemma. Reports coming from Lekidi Football Centre, although yet to be fabricated, are that the big guns lead others to form a parallel structure where they will play on their league. The clubs are angry at their chairman for taking many of the instructions from the BFA boss, and already a general melee is gathering traction that the two must resign as football has lost direction.
Zakhem says, although he supported Letshwiti, he has a sense of duty to stand for the truth. “I knew I supported Letshwiti and his troops, but you see, these guys have lost direction. I have long advised them that chopping clubs like this will cause confusion and delay progress, but they cannot listen. Letshwiti gave BFL autonomy, but I do not know why he is still interfering,” Zakhem said.
You may, by now, have heard about the dark side of the high profile P100 billion case, but wait, there is also the brighter side. Staff Writer AUBREY LUTE explores the positives accruing from the fall of the country’s biggest financial ‘scam-dal’.
A chance to fix the country’s financial record
They have not publicly been saying it, but the state agencies and the President, Dr Mokgweetsi Masisi, have been at pains to explain and rationalise how an amount almost equal to the country’s GPD left the central bank.
Many insiders attributed the country‘s troubled financial status to the case, including the grey-listing, non-compliance and identified deficiencies, some of which were hitting citizens around the globe. Botswana was in 2018 taken aback by FATF news that the country has been listed alongside countries that do not comply with (AML/CFT). The European Union Commission later flagged Botswana in March 2019 for lacking strategic deficiencies in AML/CFT regulations.
A chance to restore the dignity of the law enforcement arms
The case, without a doubt, was a distraction object on the law enforcement agencies, which spent a chunk of their time bickering and finger-pointing. A leaked audio recording exposing the explosive meeting of the law enforcement arms of government, being the Intelligence Services, Corruption and Economic Crimes agency, and the Prosecutions division summed it all.
The case presented a monumental crisis threatening the core of their being. Following these developments, the Presidency, clearly under the influence of a tripartite member, took a spine-chilling decision to disband the DCEC, a move that was saved by the organisation’s founding director- Tymon Katlholo’s bold protest.
The DPP, the Police, and the DCEC staff were used in the process to carry out bizarre instructions, some of which left the state with an egg on its face. Mistrust and backstabbing were the order of the day within the law enforcement agencies, and the P100 billion case was to blame. “Some badly wanted the plot executed while the other side badly wanted it to end to restore sanity,” an insider says.
The source further adds that “if the case did not end soon, it was going to end a lot of people’s relationships and careers because those who refused to carry the insane instructions were seen as sympathisers to former President Ian Khama.” With the case having fallen, these agencies can reflect, reconcile and go back to work.
A chance to fix diplomatic relations…
It was not only South Africa that was accused of Sabotaging Botswana’s prosecutorial goal. The state also accused several countries of refusing or delaying to assist in the process. Of all the nations, only South Africa has decided to take Botswana to task, perhaps on its proximity to Botswana. Others long ignored Botswana’s requests for assistance to the frustration of former DPP deputy director who repeatedly told the courts that they were struggling to get responses from the international community. With the case having fallen, Botswana may get a chance to face her actions, apologise and rectify the promise that lessons have been learnt.
Pressure off the shoulders of those who have to account…
The case did not only affect the law enforcement agencies. All the stakeholders were put in the spotlight to provide answers. The first to bolt out of the circle was the central bank, Moses Pelaelo, who, like DCEC director-general, long declared the case a scam. He told the world that his books were in order and that no money was missing risking his high-paying job.
According to insiders, his superiors, the then Minister of Finance and Development Planning – Dr Matsheka and his subordinate, Dr Wildfred Mandlebe, were only whispering, without success, to the Gods that there is no money missing.
So concerned and under pressure was Dr Sethibe- then the head of the Financial Intelligence Agency- who, like his Ministry supervisors, was engaging in silent screams to warn the powers that be, all in vain. He later jumped the ship to his former employer, the University of Botswana, allegedly to protect his name and career.
At the time of the fall of the case, the DIS and the DPP were at advanced plans to higher American to come and probe the Bank of Botswana’s servers in a move that bankers feared could compromise them further.
The case was bleeding the country’s coffers…
Had it not ended, the case was likely to end up ‘genuinely’ costing the country P100 billion Pula duo to its complexity and challenges. Insiders say sources who had sold the law enforcement agencies some falsified documents were paid handsomely.
Moreover, investigations were costly as they involved the international community and frequent travelling. “We are told there was also motivation for some officers to act abysmally and out of their way,” an insider said.
Lessons leant for public officers…
Public officers are often duty-bound to obey superiors instructions, no matter how irrational. The case was an eye-opener to many public officers that principle pays in the discharge of one’s duty at all times. The professional careers of the P100 billion case conspirators are currently in shambles. And as expected, the influencers, if at all there any, are nowhere to be seen.
Botswana remains on the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the “black list” of the European Union, a status quo that highlights the country as one of the high-risk jurisdictions to deal with money.
The far-reaching implications of these listings is a compromised Foreign Direct Investment drive for Botswana. In particular, these listings mean investors now have to exercise some caution and restrain when thinking about putting their money in Botswana. On Tuesday, Minister of Finance and Economic Development Peggy Serame said that Botswana could see itself out of the “undesirable listing” by October this year.
Serame called for united and concerted efforts towards liberating Botswana out of this financial noncompliance tag. She said the delisting could be archived by concerted efforts from all stakeholders: players in the financial services sector, non-financial services businesses, regulators, and every individual who deals with transactions.
Botswana is a founding member of the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG). This regional body subscribes to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to combat money laundering and financing of terrorism and proliferation.
One of the membership obligations to ESAAMLG is for Botswana to be peer-reviewed by the other Member States and other international bodies like the World Bank, IMF or FATF. The most recent assessment for Botswana to gauge compliance with the FATF standards was conducted by ESAAMLG in 2016 and culminated with publishing the Mutual Evaluation Report (MER) in 2017.
Following the discussion and adoption by the Task Force and approval of the MER by the Council of Ministers, the country was placed under enhanced follow-up. This led to a one (1) year observation period in which the country was expected to improve its technical compliance (legislative framework) by correcting the deficiencies identified in the MER.
After one year, in October 2018, the Task Force decided that the country was not taking sufficient steps to implement the recommendations made by the assessors in the MER. The Task Force recommended that Botswana be referred to the International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG) for monitoring and potential listing often referred to as the ‘FATF greylisting”.
Following the FATF greylisting, the EU placed Botswana on its list of high-risk third countries, often referred to as the ‘black list.’ In 2018, Botswana and FATF agreed to an Action Plan that had six items with several timelines. In terms of Risk and coordination, Botswana was told to develop and implement a risk-based comprehensive national AML/CFT strategy, assess the risks associated with legal persons, legal arrangements, and NPOs, and operationalize the modernized company registry to obtain and maintain essential information and Ultimate Beneficial Ownership information.
Botswana was further advised to enhance the capacity of the supervisory staff, including by developing risk-based supervision manuals and providing adequate training, implement risk-based AML/CFT supervision and impose sanctions against violations.
Furthermore, Botswana was instructed to improve analysis and dissemination of financial intelligence by the Financial Intelligence Unit, including operationalizing an online Suspicious Transactions Report filing platform and prioritizing high-risk predicate crimes, and enhancing the use of financial intelligence among the relevant law enforcement agencies.
Regarding terrorism financing investigation, Botswana was instructed to develop and implement a Counter Financing of Terrorism Strategy, operationalize the Counter-Terrorism Analysis and Fusion Centre, and ensure the Terrorism Financing investigation capacity of the law enforcement agencies.
In 2018, the 11th Parliament passed 25 pieces and, later, six others related to AML/CFT/CFP. At the just ended Parliamentary session of the 12th Parliament, lawmakers passed the Financial Intelligence (Amendment) Act to address the definition of beneficial ownership.
Cabinet approved the National AML/CFT/CFP Strategy of 2019-2024 in October 2019. At the June 2021 FATF Plenary meetings, the FATF made the initial determination that Botswana had substantially addressed the Action Plan and that this warranted an on-site assessment to verify that the implementation of Botswana’s AML/CFT/CFP reforms is in place and is being sustained. Furthermore, an assessment was to be instituted to check if the necessary political commitment remains to sustain implementation in the future.
Serame said in a televised press briefing that Botswana’s exit from the FATF grey list and the EU black list would be determined by the outcome of the on-site assessment, which will be discussed at the FATF Plenary in October 2021.
She revealed that the Botswana delegation attended the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group 42nd Task Force of Senior Officials meeting from the 26th August to the 6th September 2021, followed by the Council of Ministers on the 7th September 2021.
She told the media that at these meetings, Botswana was commended for making progress in complying with the FATF standards by addressing deficiencies in her AML/CFT/CFP framework. “We are making all these efforts of complying with the FATF standards so that we guard against our financial system being used for money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing,” she said.
“We are hopeful that at the October 2021 FATF Plenary meetings, the outcome of the on-site visit undertaken by the FATF in August 2021 will bear positive results, leading to Botswana being delisted from the FATF greylisting,” she said. However, Minister Serame called on all stakeholders to support the government to remove Botswana from the greylisting.
“As Government continues its efforts of putting in place the necessary legislative and institutional framework, due diligence must be exercised by all institutions, including the ordinary Motswana, so that no one is found dealing with financiers whose credibility is wanting,” she said.
The minister reiterated that all players in the financial services sector had a role to play: “It is important that where unsolicited funds are offered, the individual or entity so receiving the offer must ensure that the funds being offered are not associated with unlawful acts. If we are not diligent, criminals may use unsuspecting people and entities to launder proceeds of crime.”
She reiterated that the government is committed to doing all within its power to remove the country from the FATF “grey list” and the EU “black list”. However, she noted that to achieve that requires the cooperation and assistance of financial institutions, designated non-financial businesses and professions and individuals to ensure full compliance with AML/CFT/CFP rules and regulations.
“These efforts will not only assist us to be removed from these mentioned lists but are for the benefit of our country to maintain a high standard of financial prudence and an economy which genuine investors can have the confidence to invest in,” Serame explained.