BPF in letters ‘soap opera’

Spira Tlhankane | Monday March 30, 2026 06:00

At the centre of this drama lies a peculiar and now entrenched culture of ‘expel the expeller’. In the BPF, authority is no longer asserted through structures or consensus, but through letterheads. Leadership is not decided in congress halls, but in press briefings and urgent court applications.

And perhaps most telling, is that no expulsion is ever final, but it is merely the opening act of a counter-expulsion. The result is a party trapped in a self-consuming loop, where every attempt to assert control only deepens the chaos. The latest chapter in this unfolding drama began at the now-infamous Serowe elective congress of November 2025. This event was supposed to restore order, but instead detonated a fresh round of factional warfare.

Former party president Mephato Reatile, asserting his authority as party president, attempted to halt the proceedings and accused Lawrence Ookeditse and his allies of defying his directive and presiding over what he described as an unconstitutional process.

Reatile’s response came in the form of a formal expulsion letter, which is now the familiar BPF language. “You are therefore found guilty of the following misconduct: inciting members of the party to cast votes in an illegal election, participating in and supervising an unconstitutional process, disobeying and disregarding a direct presidential directive, and displaying gross disrespect towards the Directorate of Elections and Party leadership. In view of these serious breaches and in the interest of protecting the integrity, unity, and credibility of the BPF, I hereby expel you from the BPF with immediate effect,” wrote Reatile then as he expelled Ookeditse and Baratiwa Mathoothe.

But in the BPF, expulsion is never the end of the story, but merely the cue for the next act. Ookeditse and his faction ignored the letter entirely, proceeded with the congress, and emerged victorious. But within hours, the script flipped, with the expeller becoming the expelled. Reatile himself, along with Modiri Jojo Lucas, was expelled by the very group he had attempted to purge. The message was clear in the BPF: authority is reciprocal, and retaliation is immediate.

In a rare moment of calm following weeks of chaos, Reatile stunned observers by stepping aside. “I reflected in the past few weeks, I could have gone to court and won, but in the best interest of the organisation, I decided to step aside, let others lead and take this organisation to greater heights and protect members,” Reatile said during a press conference as he struck a conciliatory tone.

“We had approached Kago Mokotedi (lawyer) for representation, and he suggested that we instead have a conversation, and I am happy to say that the discussions have been fruitful,” said Ookeditse, who framed the development as a victory for dialogue over litigation.

For a brief moment, it appeared the BPF might break free from its destructive cycle, but, as it later turned out, peace in the BPF is often just an interval. Barely a month later, in December 2025, the courtroom doors swung open once again as Ookeditse’s NEC faction filed an urgent application at the Lobatse High Court, seeking to interdict a rival group led by Gaolatlhe Galebotswe. The faction styled itself as “Basireletsi ba Molao Motheo.”

The application sought sweeping orders to bar Basireletsi ba Molao Motheo from presenting itself as the NEC, to stop them from using BPF letterheads, to prevent fundraising in the party’s name, and to compel them to surrender official party materials. In essence, it was an attempt to reclaim legitimacy through legal means, a familiar strategy in BPF politics.

But last week in a decisive ruling, the Lobatse High Court dismissed the application with costs, delivering a stinging rebuke to Ookeditse’s faction. Judge William Moncho ruled that “The applicants have failed to establish a prima facie right; hence, an interim interdict cannot be granted”. More significantly, the court signalled growing frustration with the BPF’s reliance on litigation to resolve internal disputes.

“The duty of the courts in matters involving political parties is limited to giving effect to the provisions of the constitutions by which the members have contracted to be bound. Courts should not be used to settle political scores by disgruntled members who have failed to get their way through the usual decision-making processes.”

It was both a legal and a philosophical defeat for the BPF to fix its house internally. The BPF, however, had other plans, with letters now arriving from everywhere. As if the courts refused to settle the matter, the factions in the recent developments returned to their preferred battlefield: a series of correspondence.

In a dramatic escalation, Galebotswe’s faction wrote directly to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dithapelo Keorapetse. “This letter serves to formally notify the National Assembly of Botswana regarding the expulsion of Ookeditse and Mathoothe from the BPF. Consequently, Ookeditse and Mathoothe are no longer members of the BPF. Therefore, they do not represent the BPF in their capacity as Members of Parliament,” read Galebotswe’s letter to Keorapetse.

In a functioning political system, such a declaration would carry weight, but in the BPF, it triggered yet another counter-letter. The BPF Parliamentary Caucus swiftly intervened, urging the Speaker to ignore the communication entirely. “The Party is facing instability brought about by a political dispute. We believe it would not be proper or helpful to include the said letter in this message, as it could derail the peace-making effort. We request the Speaker not to entertain the letter and to urgently refer it to us for processing as elected representatives of the Party in Parliament.” MP for Serowe West, Onalepelo Kedikilwe and MP Shashe West Benjamin Franzel said in the letter.

Almost simultaneously, another rebuttal emerged, this time from the BPF Disciplinary Committee. “The BPF Disciplinary Committee informs your office that there is no such action. Kindly disregard the said communication from Galebotswe,” read another letter from committee secretary, Barulaganye Letang.

At this point, the situation descended into farce as multiple structures within the same party were issuing contradictory instructions to the same state institution, each claiming legitimacy and dismissing the other.

The BPF was no longer a political organisation, but it was a chorus of competing letterheads. Just when it seemed the chaos could not escalate further, the Disciplinary Committee delivered a dramatic twist worthy of prime-time television.

Both Ookeditse and Galebotswe were suspended, and Letang was once again the one announcing the decision. “The disciplinary committee has effected the suspensions of both Ookeditse and Galebotswe as we seek to establish the nature of the issues at hand and determine the best course of action.”

And in a move that underscored the depth of the crisis, Dr Thoko Muzila was reportedly appointed interim president of the BPF with immediate effect.

The committee attempted to reset the leadership equation, but in the BPF, no reset goes uncontested.

The Galebotswe faction responded with yet another letter by declaring the committees “defunct”. This time, the Galebotswe faction dismissed the very structures that had suspended them.

“The Interim National Executive Committee has noted with concern the circulation of false and misleading information by the purported members of the defunct Youth League and Disciplinary Committee. Following the current court case, all sub-committees became void and of no effect, being the Disciplinary Committee, Appeals Board and the Electoral Board,” Lucas said in the latest statement from the faction.

Lucas went further, attacking the legitimacy of internal bodies and, in effect, declaring the referees invalid. But now, with no referees, the game could continue indefinitely as the BPF eats itself. What emerges from this sequence is not merely disorganisation, but a pattern deeply entrenched in political culture where every decision is contested, authority is disputed, expulsion is reversed, and structure is delegitimised.

The BPF has become trapped in a recursive loop where power struggles generate more power struggles, and no outcome is ever final. When the BPF was formed in 2019, it positioned itself as a disciplined, reformist alternative, a breakaway movement seeking to challenge the excesses of the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP).

Yet today, it mirrors and arguably exceeds the dysfunction it once criticised. The party’s internal processes have collapsed under the weight of personal rivalries, legal battles, and competing interpretations of its constitution. What remains is a hollow shell that is animated by conflict.

Repeatedly, the courts have been dragged into BPF disputes and asked to determine who leads, who belongs, and who has authority. But as the recent ruling makes clear, the judiciary is increasingly unwilling to play this role. By emphasising constitutional interpretation over intervention, the courts are effectively telling the BPF to resolve its own mess.

Amid the drama, it is easy to overlook the grassroots members left trying to make sense of the chaos. These are the rhetorical questions the ordinary supporters keep asking: “Which NEC is legitimate? Which letter is valid? Who is the president today?”

In the end, the BPF’s ‘expel-the-expeller’ culture has transformed it into something resembling a political soap opera. Viewers are currently watching plot twists, rival factions, dramatic monologues and endless cliffhangers.

But unlike television, no scriptwriter is guiding the story toward resolution, but only competing actors are convinced of their legitimacy. Political analysts opine that in expelling each other endlessly, the BPF risks expelling itself from political relevance altogether and risk following the routes of defunct parties like Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD).