Manual Workers accused of intention to derail PSBC
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Monday February 9, 2026 09:48
The unions, Botswana Teachers Union (BTU), Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU), Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU), Botswana Land Board and Local Authorities and Health Workers Union (BLLAHWU), Botswana Nurses Union (BONU), and Botswana Doctors Union (BDU) have come out to oppose Manual Workers union matter in court challenging the appointment of Andrew Motsamai as the secretary of PSBC.
This week, National Amalgamated Local and Government Central and Parastatal Workers Union, commonly referred to as Manual Workers, filed a notice of motion against the Director of Public Service Management, the six unions, Motsamai, and the PSBC, indicating its intention to approach the High Court on an urgent basis to interdict Motsamai’s appointment.
The application, it said, seeks to halt the implementation of the appointment pending the finalisation of review proceedings challenging its lawfulness, validity and constitutionality. The union argued that the decision to appoint the former BOPEU president is unlawful because it was made during an ad hoc meeting convened outside the constitutional structures of the council.
However, in their notice of opposition to the application, the six unions say the application by the Manual Workers union is dilatory, meritless and founded on a wrong interpretation of the PSBC constitution.
Represented by Martin Gabobake, who deposed an answering affidavit, the unions say they deny that the appointment of Motsamai as PSBC was not done in line with the PSBC constitutional provisions. They highlight that the appointment was lawfully done during the meeting of January 30, 2026, as it followed precedent actions obtained in the initial operationalisation of the PSBC back in 2012. The unions say Robert Rabasimane, who deposed the founding affidavit on behalf of the Manual Workers union, has no personal knowledge of what transpired at the meeting of January 30, 2026.
'I verily state that I attended the aforesaid meeting from start to finish and can attest to the fact that Rabasimane was not in attendance yet he purports to speak about what occurred at the meeting. With advice from our attorneys of record, I aver that Rabasimane’s affidavit is riddled with inadmissible hearsay. He does not inform the Court of his sources who informed him of what transpired at the meeting. On this basis alone, I aver that the portions that are hearsay must be struck out,' said.
The unions said Manual Workers actively participated in all processes and meetings of the Reference Committee in an endeavour to operationalise the PSBC for the common good of all trade unions and the thousands of unionised public servants.
This, Gabobake argued, could not be attained without the appointment of the secretariat, including the secretary, which the meeting of January 30 did.
'In my view, the dispute is not about the interpretation of the PSBC constitution. The real issue is whether the employer party and the union party, collectively referred to as the Reference Committee, were entitled to appoint a secretary and the deputy secretary to convene the first meeting of the council, accept applications and discharge the duties of the secretary in operationalising the PSBC pending the confirmation of their appointment by a council at its first meeting. The respondent aver that they acted practically, lawfully and in a manner consistent with precedent because a Secretary must be in office in order for the first meeting of the PSBC to be held and in order for the trade union party to be admitted as a member to the Council,' Gabobake said.
Gabobake said it is a strange view by the applicant that the council must first convene and appoint the secretary, yet they do not disclose to the court how a council convene without a secretary issuing the notice and receiving applications from trade union parties for admission to the Council.
Additionally, Gabobake said Manual Workers was being evasive by suggesting that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possible appointment of the Secretary of the PSBC.
'The title of the invitation is clear and bolded — 'Invitation to a meeting on the appointment of the Public Service Bargaining Council secretary'. From the title of the invitation letter, it is clear that the applicant was invited to a meeting on the appointment of the PSBC Secretary. The contents of the letter are also telling. I wish to deal with the invitation to the meeting and the attitude of the Applicants to demonstrate that the complaints marshalled by the Applicant are an afterthought meant to derail the operationalisation of the PSBC, for reasons best known to the applicant,' he added.