Magang’s comments contradict the view expressed by cabinet ministers in the last parliamentary session that the legislative body has no power to question government decisions. At the time, this was seen as a hastily thought-out strategy to block Gaborone Central MP, Dumelang Saleshando’s motion that sought to question government’s decision to locate the proposed second university in the Serowe-Palapye area in disregard of the recommendations of a panel of experts.
“It was unfortunate that the motion was rejected on procedural grounds, and not on substance. To say that once cabinet has made a decision, Parliament cannot question it was wrong,” Magang said. “Parliament is entitled to change, not only to question, decisions of government. If Parliament can question the validity of certain pieces of legislation and even amend them, there is no reason why it can’t change what is obviously a policy recommendation. I feel the motion must be moved again in the next session, and it must be discussed on its content and substance. If government has sufficient support of MPs in Parliament that the university should be located at Palapye, then the motion can be rejected. If Parliament rejects it after a debate, then it validates the decision of government against the recommendations of the commission. It was wrong to reject the motion purely on misleading procedural grounds.”
Magang pointed out that parliamentary procedure is that if a motion is tabled and discussed in Parliament, and it is rejected in substance, the motion’s mover cannot re-table it for a specific period. “In this particular case, the motion was not discussed. Therefore, it can be brought back to Parliament,” he said.
Magang suggested that the explanation for government’s disquiet over the motion could be that cabinet ministers were pressurised to accept that the university be located in the Serowe-Palapye area. Having accepted the decision, they feel bound by it. However, he said, that could not stop other people from questioning the decision. “Certainly,” Magang said, “Parliament can question it and force government to change it as a decision that is not in accordance with the commission’s recommendations and the popular view.”
Magang - who has held various ministerial portfolio, including minerals, energy and water affairs; as well as works, transport and communications - said from a business point of view, Selebi-Phikwe could become a ghost town, and the best thing is to create institutions that could support it after the closure of the copper-nickel mine.
“When I was mines minister, I was always advised that the copper was getting depleted and that Selebi-Phikwe would become a ghost town. To me, a university of this nature could be one of the supporting institutions in a town like that. And all over the world, universities have supported major cities,” Magang said. He gave examples of Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom in South Africa, which are not industrial towns, but are supported by university locations, as well as British university towns of Oxford and Cambridge.
Magang does not see the merit in the argument that Selebi-Phikwe is not an ideal place for the location of the university because of air pollution from the BCL mine smelter. “If the mine’s life comes to an end, there will be no more sulphur from the smelter,” he said.
As mining minister in 1994, Magang said he commissioned a study to establish if it would be wise to close the mine on the basis that it was not making money. As it turned out, the report said it would be unwise to close down the mine when there were still possibilities of finding more copper, and that government should continue to keep the mine running. He presented the same recommendation to cabinet because the feeling was that even though the BCL mine was not profitable, it had important economic impact on the country, and it supported very essential components of the national economy.
“The ordinary retail shops in the town were dependent on the purchasing power of the 5,000 - 6,000 workers. Water Utilities Corporation also maintained a constant supply of water from Shashe Dam, and therefore maintained employment and economic activity. Botswana Power Corporation supplied more power to the mine than any other customer. The major part of coal from Morupule goes to Selebi-Phikwe. So to close the mine would cause a crisis in the country,” Magang said.
Under the present circumstances, he said the beauty of democracy “is that whatever decision government takes must be subjected to debate”.
“In a dictatorship, of course, there is nothing you can do.”
Saleshando confirmed last night that he would re-table the motion in the next parliamentary session. He said he had already notified the parliamentary staff of his intention.
Following advice from various people, including MPs, Saleshando said he would rephrase the motion in a way that would not necessarily forestall implementation of what government has already decided.
“We will not be trying to stop the project from going on, but just getting Parliament to express its displeasure,” he said.
