BDP retreat sparks debate over constitutionality
Tsaone Basimanebotlhe | Wednesday March 4, 2026 06:00
Concerned members, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of victimisation, questioned both the legitimacy and financial prudence of the retreat. They contend that any resolutions adopted during the meeting cannot formally bind party structures because they did not originate from recognised constitutional platforms. In their view, the retreat bypassed the proper chain of party processes, creating uncertainty over its outcomes.
According to these members, the BDP constitution clearly stipulates that party matters must begin at the grassroots level, from branches, cells, constituencies, and regions, before being escalated to higher organs such as the Central Committee (CC) or the National Council. “The Central Committee knows what is supposed to be done if things are to be done correctly,” one member argued. “For example, the constitution is very clear on how it can be reviewed. If leaders want to hear issues from members, they must instruct branches, constituencies, cells, and regions to convene and submit their positions. We are wasting money that we are supposed to be saving. Remember, we are now an opposition party.”
The concerned members also emphasised that the current constitution remains binding and must be followed without exception. In their opinion, the Central Committee derives its mandate from the National Council and cannot introduce processes that fall outside established structures. They argued that delaying proper procedures not only undermines party democracy but also stalls progress and creates unnecessary confusion. Critics warned that bypassing recognised party organs risks setting a dangerous precedent.
“Ignoring the constitution, even in the name of dialogue, can weaken internal accountability and erode trust among members,” said one concerned member. However, BDP executive secretary Ame Makoba acknowledged that the retreat is not explicitly provided for in the party constitution. Nevertheless, he dismissed suggestions that it was unconstitutional or an attempt to sidestep party procedures.
“It is true, as my president indicated, that the retreat is not in the constitution,” Makoba said. “However, the resolutions made there can be forwarded to branches for discussion. If members believe in them, those resolutions will then proceed to the National Council.”
Makoba further explained that the retreat served as an informal platform designed to encourage open dialogue among members. Unlike statutory meetings where delegates are selected through structured processes, the retreat allowed participants to express themselves freely without the procedural limitations that characterise formal gatherings.
He reassured members that there is no attempt to undermine the constitution.
“Members must not worry that anyone is trying to bypass the constitution. There is no way it will not be followed,” he said, emphasising that the retreat’s role was consultative rather than binding.
Whilst the leadership maintains that the retreat was a strategic forum to foster unity and open communication, critics insist that strict adherence to constitutional procedures remains essential.