Connect with us

Our Parliamentary Speakers are partisan!

Ndulamo Anthony Morima

Of late we have witnessed rulings and/or actions by the Speakers of the National Assembly, especially the Deputy Speaker, Honourable Kagiso Molatlhegi, which make it difficult for one to believe that they treat all the political parties represented in Parliament equally and respectfully.

Granted, both the Speaker, Honourable Gladys Kokorwe, and the Deputy Speaker, Honourable Kagiso Molatlhegi,, are known members of the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), but it is an essential democratic tenet that in deference to the independence of Parliament the Speakers must treat Members of Parliament(MPs) without favour and respectfully.

By so doing, the Speakers do not only show respect towards the other MPs, but also show respect towards themselves because after all they too are MPs, albeit with an added title of Speaker or Deputy Speaker. In fact, if democracy were run the way it should be the Speaker and Deputy Speaker would be subordinate to the MPs since they are elected by MPs.

But most importantly, when Speakers show respect for fellow MPs they show respect to Parliament as an institution and by implication the State because Parliament is a cardinal institution of State.

Not only that. A Speaker who respects a fellow MP respects democracy itself for an MP is a member of one of the three tenets of democracy, the Legislature the other two being the Judiciary and the Executive. Put simply, without an MP there is no Parliament and without Parliament there is no State.

A mature Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot protect his or her political party at the expense of such a sacrosanct value as independence of Parliament. Similarly, a mature political party cannot admonish a Speaker or Deputy Speaker for not protecting its MPs if in doing so the Speaker or Deputy Speaker promotes our democracy.   
Last year Honourable Molatlhegi ordered the forceful removal by National Assembly security guards of Gaborone Central MP, Honourable Dr. Phenyo Butale, in a manner that not only humiliated Honourable Dr. Butale, but also denigrated the sanctity of Parliament.  

The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC)’s Honourable Dr. Butale may have acted in a manner that is unparliamentarily by not acceding to Honourable Molatlhegi’s order to leave the house, but Honourable Molatlhegi’s order to call in security for the legislator’s forced removal was disproportionate and unwarranted.

Public perception at the time was that Honourable Molatlhegi acted as he did because Honourable Dr. Butale is an opposition MP and that he would not have acted in that manner if a BDP MP or cabinet Minister had committed the same or even more reprehensible wrong. Such perception may have been wrong, but in politics perception often assumes the status of fact.   

Recently, other Opposition MPs, Honourable Haskins Nkaigwa and Honourable Wynter Mmolotsi, both from the UDC, were, in my view without justifiable cause, ordered to leave Parliament by Honourable Molatlhegi for discharging their duties as MPs.

According to Honourable Molatlhegi the legislatures, who were attempting to contribute to the debate on the diplomatic stand-off between the Peoples Republic of China and Botswana following a press statement issued by Botswana accusing China of imposing its power over others to make claims because of its economy or military, were out of order.

Surprisingly, when BDP MPs, including Ministers of Justice, Defence & Security and Foreign Affairs, Honourable Shaw Kgathi and Dr. Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi respectively, commented on the very same debate they were not ruled out of order.

Rather, Honourable Molatlhegi inexplicably upheld their call to have the debate suspended until the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Honourable Duma Boko, clarifies parts of his statement which Honourable Shaw Kgathi said was based on falsehood.

In an unprecedented ruling, in conceding to his BDP colleagues’ calls Honourable Molatlhegi ordered that the debate will only be continued once the Hansard has been prepared in the coming week.

It will be remembered that one of the reasons the former Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Margret Nasha, lost favour with President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama and some in the BDP is that she fought in defence of the independence of Parliament. It would be regrettable if the reason President Khama brought Honourable Kokorwe and Honourable Molatlhegi was to subvert the independence of Parliament.

In South Africa, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) Chairperson, Baleka Mbete, and Thandi Modise, have used their positions of Speaker of the National Assembly and Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces respectively to oppress Opposition MPs, especially those from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), Democratic Alliance (DA) and Congress of the People (COPE).

It is common cause that this has not silenced the Opposition as the ANC had thought, but has polarized the nation and made Parliament ungovernable to the detriment of democracy. Though one cannot condone the rebellious methods used by the EFF and COPE, the results of such oppression were seen when, for two successive years, the EFF disturbed President Jacob Zuma in his presentation of the State of the Nation Address (SONA).

This has, no doubt, dented South Africa’s image globally and has earned it a negative perception by foreign investors and the markets, something which can only be detrimental for the country’s economy. This is certainly one of the reasons South Africa’s economy was down-graded by many rating agencies. Botswana is not immune from this.

The Speakers of our National Assembly, especially Honourable Molatlhegi should know that they cannot suppress the people’s will through authoritarian rule. Depots like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini failed in their quest for autocratic rule. MPs are people’s representatives and most times they represent the will of the people. Therefore, suppressing an MP or treating him or her with contempt and ridicule is equivalent to treating the voters with contempt and ridicule.

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!