Skelemani was responding to a question from Specially Elected MP, Botsalo Ntuane, during a breakfast panel discussion on the Intelligence and Security Bill 2006 at the Gaborone Sun yesterday. Ntuane and other interested parties had asked the Minister whether he would withdraw the bill to take on board some of the suggestions and views that may improve on it. Skelemani said he would rather have the bill presented to Parliament in its current form and then have it assigned to a Committee. This committee, he said, would then see to it that they consulted widely and invited those knowledgeable enough on the matter to come forward with views to enhance it. He said this would be a better thing to do than to shelve the bill pending consultation.

Explaining why it was necessary for the country to have the agency, Skelemani said, although crime peddlers may not as yet have targeted Botswana, the country as part of the United Nations, had agreed to fight terrorism. Botswana, therefore, needs to gather information and alert its neighbours, hence the need for the proposed body.

While other entities such as the Criminal Investigation Department are in existence, Skelemani said they are internal and the NIA would have offices outside the country and would be spying on the outside world and gather more information than the CID does.

He implored the audience to find a way of making sure that the bill has an insightful component and that the proposed law is not intended to harm any Motswana. "I am open minded to take on board the views of others," said Skelemani.

But attorney Dick Bayford argued that the bill should not go to Parliament in its current form. He contended that government, through the Minister of Presidential Affairs and Public Administration, should be open-minded and should appreciate debate on the bill. The government, he said, should take back the bill so that the views expressed by debaters on oversight are accommodated in the bill. Bayford pointed out that his views are informed by the fact that Parliament lacks expertise and, to enhance the bill, it could make use of experts at the Attorney General's Chambers.

Bayford further took issue with what he referred to as too much concentration of powers in the hands of the presidency, as proposed by the bill. He argued that the President, or his proxies, might abuse such powers, as the President does not have to give reasons for appointing the Director General of the NIA. Such a scenario, he argued, was undesirable in a functional democracy. He cited countries such as the United Kingdom that have institutions similar to the NIA. However, he explained that in the UK, such bodies operate under acts of Parliament and under other bodies such as the Independent Commissioners and tribunals. Bayford also raised concern that while the NIA would have powers to arrest, the bill fails to state in clear terms the time one could be held under arrest.

Despite the disagreements generated by the bill, Skelemani and other stakeholders and politicians across the political divide agreed that such an institution is a necessary evil. The other point of convergence was that the NIA should not be abused. Mmadinare MP, Ponatshego Kedikilwe, said though the bill might have been long overdue, people should not create an animal that would eventually get out of control and consume every one. Michael Dingake, former BCP leader, shared Kedikilwe's sentiments and stated that, more often than not, such entities become the law unto themselves, as was the case with the KGB during the former Soviet Union. Gaborone Central MP, Dumelang Saleshando, stated that both sides of the debate had valid points but the important point would be to ensure that the executive did not abuse the NIA and that could only be achieved by creating accountability.

The event was organised by BOCONGO in conjunction with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.