Connect with us


Jeff Ramsay

When Batswana enlisted in the African Pioneer Corps from 1941 they were assured by both their Dikgosi and British officials that their tour of duty would last until the final defeat of Hitler’s Reich. Thus in the aftermath of the 8th May 1945 unconditional surrender of Germany most of the “fighting Becs” expected that they would soon be able to finally return to their country and loved ones.

For their part the British had also initially timetabled the return of all of the High Commission Territories Pioneer units (APC), i.e. Basotho and Amaswati as well as Batswana, by September of 1945. Yet by the end of the month only 14% of the force had actually been repatriated.

As it was, the last of the Batswana companies recruited for the war only departed from Egypt in March of 1946, arriving at Clairwood Camp in Durban the following month. There they were finally discharged with each being given a new suit, their accumulated back pay and an additional £10 to cover transport home.

The reason for the delay in the APC’s demobilisation was twofold.

On the one hand in the aftermath of the war there was a genuine shortage of shipping to cater for the return of British Empire servicemen. This situation was further aggravated by the fact that the Japanese only agreed to finally surrender three months after the fall of Germany, in the wake of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the imminent prospect of a joint US-Soviet invasion of their home islands.

In the above context, the APC was ultimately given lower priority than the return or redeployment of service men from other areas. While the preference given to some, such as liberated POWS from East Asia, can be seen as having been routinely reasonable, it is also true that white units, as well as units whose post-war loyalty was more suspect than the APC were placed ahead of the queue by the British War Office (WO).

There was, however, an additional motive for the delay. With the drawdown of Indian, South African and Australia-New Zealand (Anzac) forces from the region, Britain’s Middle East Command (MEC) found the continued presence of the APC units to be useful for upholding their authority in Egypt and the adjacent territory of Palestine, where imperial interests were coming under increasing challenge.

Thus it was that although by August 1945 all of the APC companies had been withdrawn from Italy and elsewhere, most remained stationed for another seven months in these two territories, in the face of growing post-war resistance to continued British occupation.

Their final withdrawal, moreover, nearly coincided with the arrival of 3,600 fresh troops of the APC’s rebranded successor force – the High Commission Territories Corps.

Although recognized as an independent kingdom in 1922, Egypt had remained under defacto British occupation, which up until 1952 was exercised through a royal puppet regime. Nationalist resentment in the country had been aggravated by the virtual British military takeover during the war, which had effectively shattered all pretence of Egyptian sovereignty.

Although most of the British, including Batswana, forces were confined to the Suez Canal Zone in 1947, their continued presence in the country was still resented. Like other imperial forces, the Batswana troops thus experienced mutual hostility from the local Arabic speaking population. As one Motswana veteran, Selebatso “S.G.” Masimega, noted:

“Arabs were a peculiar people I can’t understand. They saw Africans as very queer, pro-British, and some of them would often speak to the African soldiers to tell them that the Batswana take the British to be their gods…Arabs regard Africans as a minor people under the British; the called us ‘British dogs’”

In Palestine the situation was much more tense with both Zionist (Jewish) and Palestinian guerrillas fighting the British, as well as each other, in the run up to the full scale 1948-49 war that would ultimately give birth to the State of Israel, along with the uprooting of much of the Palestinian Arab population that is the foundation of today’s Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

From late 1945 many Batswana and Basotho companies that had been battle hardened in Italy were thus deployed in Palestine over their protests. Most were stationed either at Esdraelon, near the biblical town of Nazareth, or in Jerusalem. As part of the British occupation they were targeted by Zionist and Arabs insurgents alike, although the former claimed more APC casualties. As another veteran, Julius Segano, observed:

“(Our) coming home was delayed because of Palestine and the Arabs. So now is another experience, guerrilla warfare. We used not to carry guns when going into villages, but there in Palestine we had to.”

In December 1945 resentment among Basotho APC troops boiled over into a full scale mutiny after four of their comrades were killed in a Zionist (Irgun) bombing of a Jerusalem police station. The mutiny was ultimately put down by force, during which three Basotho were killed and a dozen more wounded. (To be continued)

Continue Reading


DIS Parley Committee selection disingenuous 

25th November 2020

Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.

This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.

The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.

On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members.  The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.

The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.

The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed.  The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.

The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.

If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.

So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.

The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption.  Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.

The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus.  So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS.  They demand a start from a clean slate.

The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.

Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.

Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.

In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.

Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.

The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.

There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.

But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.

There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.

He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.

The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.

Continue Reading


The Maccabean Uprising

25th November 2020
Jewish freedom fighters

 Jews drive away occupying power under the command of guerrilla leader Judas Maccabees but only just

Although it was the Desolation Sacrilege act, General Atiku, that officially sparked the Maccabean revolt, it in truth simply stoked the fires of an already simmering revolution. How so General?

This content is locked

Login To Unlock The Content!


Continue Reading


Atomic (CON)Fusion

25th November 2020

For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way. 

I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However,  the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’.  Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.

No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.

I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century.  Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?

The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.

In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”

The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying  ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.

  • Nothing happens until something moves
  • The secret of getting ahead is getting started


  • Act or be acted upon

All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD!  This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.

To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts:  *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”

As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide.  What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. they end up driving around in circles’.

As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.

JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated.  Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”

2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.

.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.

Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!