The government has once more lost an appeal against the provision of ARVs to foreign inmates. I think this is a decisive win by BONELA and their supporters. Government must move fast to do the necessary to respect the law. The appeals’ court must be congratulated for its principled stand in support of the law.
The prison act says all prisoners regardless of where they come from must be treated the same and must have the same privileges and same medical care. One wonders if this is not a right that should be applicable to all human beings. One further wonders why this is only applicable to prisoners.
However, this is a law that was passed by our parliament and the government has no choice but to obey its own law. I am glad though that the government has caused all this commotion by not providing foreign prisoners with this medication; otherwise some of us would not have known that there exists such a law for prisoners and not the rest of society. I again wonder aloud why government endowed with its legal brains could not have known that they do not have a case when such a law that is so explicit exists!
BONELA and its lawyers are celebrating, yes there must celebrate because they mounted a spirited legal battle and won all the cases against government with all access to unlimited legal and financial resources. So they must celebrate for winning this battle. While they celebrate, they must also be asking themselves whether this was the correct battle to wage against government.
The specific legal battle has been won but they must not exaggerate this win. The assertion by BONELA lawyers that this case is a victory for all Batswana and that it will benefit all Batswana in prison and outside prison is no entirely correct.
This in my view is very simplistic. Yes it will benefit the prison population, but what happens when these prisoners leave the prisons to go back to the world and cannot afford to continue this lifelong medication.
Will these prisoners stop infecting others including Batswana and how long will they live before they die if they cannot get medication outside prison? I will be forgiven for believing that BONELA and their lawyers have not looked at this issue in a holistic manner.
We need a holistic solution if we want to effectively fight HIV and aids, not an associated case that has potential to jeopardise the entire HIV/aids program in Botswana. BONELA and their lawyers do not seem to care whether we can afford this or not as a country.
They do not care if this depletes budgets from other health care services, from school programs and from other social and development programs. This does not matter according to BONELA and their lawyers as long as these foreign prisoners get our ARVs. I do not believe this a responsible position to take.
The argument that this will benefit all Batswana is limited in its scope. BONELA’s logic will apply only if we provide ARVs to all foreigners living in our country but by extension also everyone in the world who needs such treatment must be provided with this medication. Why is this so?
The answer is obvious. We live in the global village where people work together across nations; where people have relationships across nations; where people marry across nations. Therefore people infect each other globally. So if we really want to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS we must have a global approach and set up a global fund to fight this scourge? If we had a global fund for HIV/AIDS programs managed perhaps by the United Nations I would celebrate with BONELAs.
Maybe this is what these human rights activists should be fighting for not just for prisoners in Botswana.
Discrimination is not a good word, we know that, but sometimes we have to discriminate in order safe guard our own interests. We choose to use other words when we discriminate. One of the major reasons why communism failed is because of its perceived utopian desire to share every thing because they hated discrimination with passion.
Human beings you like it or not are selfish beings. Who honestly does not want himself or herself first? Who will feed his neigbour’s children before he feeds his own children? Such a human being does not exist in reality.
Apart from the law, why would we want our government to give prisoners ARVs when there is no international obligation to do so and especially when we know that providing ARV s is a life commitment which our government cannot honour? BONELA’s argument is full of holes from a social and long-term point of view.
From a legal perspective, government has enacted this ACT and it is the same government that can repeal it. To me it looks like this is one of the pieces of legislation that was ill advised. One wonders what the legal brains at the government enclave were doing when they allowed such a legislation to pass. For now, it looks like we have no choice but to supply ARVs to prisoners and impoverish the nation until we can reverse this piece of legislation.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, we have 4241 prisoners (2012) and the prison occupancy is 99.8 %. This means our prisons are full and from reports from eye witnesses, our prisons are in pathetic, unbearable hygienic conditions. The ablutions specifically are reported to be in real bad conditions.
Should we rather be fighting to improve the unhealthy conditions in our prisons rather than the short term issue of supplying ARVs to foreign prisoners? How many people have died because of the poor hygienic standards in our prisons? This was an aside; my real question here is what do we gain by locking foreign prisoners in our jails?
In a previous submission I argued that we should deport foreigners when the commit crime in our country. Why can’t we deport them back to their country and declare them prohibited inhabitants never to set foot in our country. We have done that to people who in the eyes of many did not commit any clime except to criticise our government. What do we gain by imprisoning foreigners in our jails?
Some of our people including myself think that there is absolutely no benefit in locking foreigners in our prisons. What we should perhaps allow is small holding cells which could be used while they await their deportation. Our prisons are full (99.8%) and do we need to build more prisons to cater for foreigners?
The cost of running our prisons will increase for every foreigner we imprison. There will be more food, more medicines, more water, more electricity, more cleaning materials, more that and more this. These are things we do not have for all our people and our responsibility must first be for our own people.
What legal responsibility do we have for keeping these foreign criminals in our prisons? This is not xenophobic as some may start thinking. We simple do not keep foreigners if there are no mutual benefits. No country does that, except for refugees. Why are we keeping these people then when they have offended our justice and our people? Are they not better off in their countries of origin?
There is another good reason why we should deport them; it would work as a crime deterrent measure for foreigners. If a foreigner knows that committing a crime in Botswana, will earn him a one way ticket back to his country, then that foreigner will think twice before committing a crime in Botswana.
In conclusion we should not reward criminals by providing them with ARVs that we cannot even afford for our own people. We must think about our people first. I think those people who want foreigners to be provided with ARVs should rather fight for a global fund for international management of HIV/ AIDS. It cannot be our government responsibility to provide foreigners with ARVs when they cannot afford them and also when we cannot guarantee the continued provision of these lifelong drugs after the prison life.
If our government is able to depot people for crimes only known by the president why is the same government not able to depot known criminals? Government should not hesitate to depot all foreign prisoners. This will not only reduce prison maintenance costs and congestion but may also cause the world to realise that HIV/AIDS requires a global response as it does not respect boundaries and borders designed by man!
Bernard Busani E mail; email@example.com; Tel; 71751440
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
This is a dangerous moment for Europe and for freedom-loving people around the world. By launching his brutal assault on the people of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has also committed an assault on the principles that uphold global peace and democracy. But the people of Ukraine are resilient.
They’ve had a democracy for decades, and their bravery is inspiring the world. The United States, together with our Allies and partners across the globe, will continue to support the Ukrainian people as they defend their country. By choosing to pay for a war instead of investing in the needs of Russians, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will be a strategic failure for the Kremlin and ravage the future of the Russian people.
When the history of this era is written, it will show that Putin’s choice to launch an unprovoked, unjust, and premeditated attack left the West more unified and Russia exponentially weaker.
United in Our Response
This will not end well for Vladimir Putin. Together, the United States and our Allies and partners are taking action to hold Russia accountable. As a result of unprecedented global sanctions coordination, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, and Canada have removed selected Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging system and imposed restrictive measures on the Russian Central Bank.
President Biden announced sweeping financial sanctions and stringent export controls that will damage Russia’s economy, financial system, and access to cutting-edge technology. After Putin began his invasion, the ruble hit its weakest point in history, and the Russian stock market plunged.
Along with the United Kingdom and European Union, the United States imposed sanctions on the architects of this war, including Putin himself.
By moving in close coordination with a powerful coalition of Allies and partners representing more than half of the global economy, we have magnified the impact of our actions to impose maximum costs on Putin and his regime. In response to Putin’s war of choice, we will limit Russia’s ability to do business in U.S. dollars.
We will stunt Russia’s ability to finance and grow its military. We will impair Russia’s ability to compete in the global economy. And we are prepared to do more.
In addition to economic penalties, this week President Biden authorized an additional $1 billion over the $350 million of security assistance he recently approved, and a $650 million in 2021, to immediately help Ukraine defend itself, bringing America’s total security assistance to Ukraine over the past year to $2 billion.
We also stand ready to defend our NATO Allies. President Biden has coordinated with Allied governments to position thousands of additional forces in Germany and Poland as part of our commitment to NATO’s collective defense.
He authorized the deployment of ground and air forces already stationed in Europe to NATO’s eastern and southeastern flanks: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. Our Allies have also added their own forces and capabilities to ensure our collective defense. There should be no doubt about the readiness of the greatest military Alliance in the history of the world: NATO is more united than ever.
The United States has also coordinated with major oil-producing and consuming countries to underscore our common interest in securing global energy supplies. We are working with energy companies to surge their capacity to supply energy to the market, particularly as prices increase.
Putin’s Unprovoked and Premeditated War
This was an attack that Vladimir Putin has planned for a long time. He methodically moved more than 150,000 troops and military equipment to Ukraine’s border. He moved blood supplies into position and built field hospitals, demonstrating his intentions all along.
He rejected every good-faith effort by the United States and our Allies and partners to address his fabricated security concerns and to avoid needless conflict and human suffering by engaging in diplomacy and dialogue.
Putin executed his playbook exactly as we had warned he would do. We saw Russia’s proxies increase their shelling in the Donbas. We saw the Russian government launch cyber-operations against Ukraine. We saw staged political theater in Moscow and heard outlandish and baseless claims made about Ukraine in an attempt to justify Russia’s aggression.
Russia continues to justify its military aggression by falsely claiming the need to stop “genocide” in Ukraine – despite there being no evidence that genocide was occurring there. We saw Russia use these tactics before when they invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Georgia in 2008.
And then, at almost the very same moment the United Nations Security Council was meeting to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and forestall disaster, Putin launched his invasion in violation of international law. Missiles began to rain down, striking historic cities across Ukraine. Then came air raids, columns of tanks, and battalions of troops, all riding a renewed wave of disinformation and outright lies.
We have been transparent with the world. We declassified our intelligence about Russia’s plans so there could be no confusion and no cover up. Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war. And now his people will bear the consequences of his decision to invest in war rather than in them.
Transatlantic Unity and Resolve Stronger Than Ever
Putin’s goal of dividing the West has failed. In the face of one of the most significant challenges to European security and democratic ideals since World War II, the United States and our Allies and partners have joined together in solidarity. We have united, coordinating intensively to engage as one with Russia and Ukraine, provided assistance to Ukraine, developed a broad response, and reaffirmed our commitment to NATO.
Putin has failed to divide us. Putin has failed to undermine our shared belief in the fundamental right of sovereign nations to choose their destiny and their allies. And Putin will fail to erase the proud nation of Ukraine.
The next few days, weeks, and months will be incredibly difficult for the people of Ukraine. Putin has unleashed great suffering on them. But the Ukrainian people have known 30 years of independence, and they have repeatedly shown they will not tolerate anyone who tries to take their country backwards.
The world is watching this conflict closely, and if Russian forces commit atrocities, we will explore all international mechanisms that could be used to bring those responsible – whether members of the military or their civilian leadership – to account.
Putin’s aggression against Ukraine will cost Russia profoundly, both economically and strategically. The Russian people deserve better from their government than the immense cost to their future that this invasion has precipitated.
Liberty, democracy, and human dignity are forces far more powerful than fear and oppression. In the contest between democracy and autocracy, between sovereignty and subjugation, make no mistake: Freedom will prevail.