Boko defies Batswana on ConCourt
Staff Writer | Tuesday March 31, 2026 10:55
Backed by ruling Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) legislators, the Bill sailed through yesterday with a commanding majority, cementing Boko’s determination to establish a Constitutional Court (ConCourt), even as voices from across the country called for a pause.
Boko was present, with voting and the decision marking a turning point in Botswana’s legal and political landscape. But outside the walls of Parliament, the mood is far from celebratory. Across dikgotla, clinics, and social media platforms, a different narrative has taken hold, which is one of frustration, disbelief, and a growing sense that leaders are no longer in step with the people they serve.
For weeks, nationwide consultations revealed a consistent message from Batswana, which was not outright rejection of the ConCourt, but deep concern over its timing. Citizens spoke candidly about medicine shortages, crumbling roads, and under-resourced schools. Many questioned how a government that repeatedly cites empty coffers could justify the cost of a new court system.
Yet despite these concerns, the Bill has now become law. The speed and determination with which the legislation moved forward have left some questioning whether public input truly shaped the outcome or merely fulfilled a procedural requirement.
At Kgotla meetings, Matshelagabedi to Tsabong in January, citizens urged the government to pause, reprioritise, and address urgent service delivery failures first. Instead, many now feel their voices were acknowledged but ultimately set aside.
Supporters of the Bill, which included ministers, argue that governance cannot be reduced to a single issue, and they maintain that constitutional reform is a long-term investment and one that strengthens democracy, improves legal clarity, and ensures more efficient handling of constitutional matters. From this perspective, they argue the establishment of the ConCourt is not a distraction, but a necessary evolution of the state.
They also point to the benefits of a specialised court, which will include a faster resolution of constitutional disputes, consistency in legal interpretation, and a clearer separation of judicial functions. By centralising constitutional authority, they argue, Botswana can avoid conflicting judgments and enhance the protection of fundamental rights.
They also stressed that the government operates across multiple fronts simultaneously. Their point is that addressing healthcare challenges, fixing infrastructure, and reforming institutions are not mutually exclusive tasks. In this light, they feel that the passage of the Bill is framed not as neglect, but as balance.
For many Batswana, the issue is the lived reality of clinics without essential medicines, patients turned away without treatment, and families forced to pay out-of-pocket for basic care. They argue these challenges have created a sense of urgency that constitutional reform cannot easily match.
The fear is that leaders appear more responsive to institutional ambitions than to immediate human needs. Even some political voices, mainly from the opposition, have warned that prioritising structural reform during a service delivery crisis risks eroding public trust.
Beyond timing, the Bill introduces profound changes to the judiciary. Concentrating constitutional authority in a single court elevates that institution to unprecedented influence, deciding on elections, rights, and the legality of government actions. What is clear now is that the passage of the Bill has created a political moment that extends beyond law.
For the government, the challenge now is not just to build a court, but to rebuild confidence and to show that advancing constitutional reform does not come at the expense of addressing the immediate struggles citizens face. For Batswana, the question lingers, “Were they heard, or simply consulted?”