Why Botswana journalists cannot ignore their country’s digital future
THOMAS NKHOMA | Monday October 6, 2025 06:00
When Parliament passed the Access to Information Act in 2024, it was hailed as a milestone for democracy. At long last, people said, there was a legal framework to demand information that for years had been locked away in dusty government files. On the other hand, the Data Protection Act was finding its footing as a safeguard of personal data. However, between these two laws lies the delicate balance of our digital era. That is, the right to know versus the right to be protected and the need for sovereignty over information without suffocating freedom of the press.
Data sovereignty sounds straightforward enough. Those who understand it, understand it as the idea that information stored in Botswana should be governed by Botswana laws. However, for journalists, it is a double-edged sword. On one side, it could protect confidential sources from foreign interference and shield citizens from external exploitation. On the other hand, it risks becoming a convenient excuse for secrecy, with authorities waving the flag of sovereignty to deny access to records that are clearly in the public interest.
Take information security and classification, for instance. Not all information held by the government should be classified as confidential. Too often, routine public service data (PSD) - procurement details, environmental reports, budget breakdowns - is locked away under the catch-all label of “sensitive.” This culture of over-classification not only frustrates journalists but undermines the spirit of the Access to Information Act.
Security is vital, but it should not be confused with secrecy. Consequently, the challenge for Botswana is to design a classification system that truly distinguishes between information that protects national security and information that simply exposes inefficiency or mismanagement. Too often, the National Security Act has been invoked to deny journalists information. Regardless, Batswana have the right to know how their taxes are spent, how policies are implemented, and how decisions are made.
Yet even as journalists fight for greater access, they also find themselves more exposed than ever. The digital age has brought with it a new and insidious threat - doxxing. When the personal data of journalists Kabo Ramasia and Kealeboga Dihutso was splashed across digital platforms, it was more than a breach of privacy. It was an attack on press freedom itself. Doxxing turns journalists into targets, exposing them and their families to harassment, intimidation, and even physical danger. Most importantly, it is a chilling reminder that information sovereignty must also mean protection of the individuals who hold power to account. If journalists cannot be assured that their personal data is safe, then sovereignty becomes meaningless, reduced to a hollow principle on paper.
Meanwhile, the Cybercrime and Computer Related Crimes Act complicates matters further. While designed to protect the country against cyber threats, its surveillance powers are broad enough to include the monitoring of digital communications. The law gives law enforcement procedural powers to intercept or monitor digital communications under certain conditions, access or seize computer systems or data, and collect traffic or content in real time.
Consequently, in an environment where misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation are real dangers, such powers are tempting tools for the state. But they also raise a troubling question: who watches the watchdogs? Without independent oversight, surveillance can easily slip into spying on journalists under the guise of combating falsehoods. The same digital tools meant to protect society from lies could just as easily be used to muzzle the truth.
This is why the Access to Information Act, Data Protection Act, and Cybercrime and Computer Related Crimes Act must be seen not as isolated laws but as a triangle shaping Botswana’s digital future. If interpreted together with a commitment to openness, they can complement one another. Access to information can ensure transparency, data protection can secure privacy, and cybersecurity can protect against genuine threats. Conversely, if misapplied, the same laws could collide, leaving journalists trapped between the denial of information, surveillance of their work, and exposure of their personal lives.
Picture the two paths that lie ahead. In one, a journalist submits a request for data on public service delivery and, thanks to a clear classification policy, receives it quickly and without obstruction. They can pursue their story confidently, knowing their communications are not under surveillance and their personal details are not at risk of being weaponised against them. In the other, the same request is stamped “confidential,” their emails flagged for monitoring, and their home address ends up circulating on social media. One path strengthens democracy while the other erodes it. Both are possible, though.
For Botswana, the choice is urgent. Data sovereignty must not become a euphemism for secrecy or surveillance. It must mean that information of public interest remains accessible, that journalists’ personal data is fiercely protected, and that security frameworks serve citizens rather than stifle them. A democracy that aspires for openness must build a digital future where sovereignty, freedom, and safety are not in competition but in harmony. As one commentator once remarked, “the day sovereignty becomes an excuse to hide everything and expose everyone is the day it stops serving the people.”
Botswana has always prided itself on its democratic ethos. The real test now is whether those traditions can survive the challenges of the digital age. For journalists, this is not an abstract debate. It is the terrain on which their safety, freedom, and their very ability to tell the country’s stories will be decided. Notwithstanding these challenges, I take comfort in knowing that the current government is cognizant of the issues and has integrated them into ongoing discussions aimed at fostering an enabling and media-friendly environment, provided there is no shift in commitment over time. Such progress is evidenced by the establishment of the Ministerial Task Team that was tasked with reviewing media laws and recommending reforms to other statutory instruments that may otherwise hinder such noble efforts.
*Thomas Thos Nkhoma is MISA-Botswana chairperson