Examining the role of Botswana’s proposed media Ombudsman
Kabo Ramasia | Friday June 19, 2026 15:11
The Draft Media Bill of 2025 could be just what the doctor ordered for the media fraternity, helping restore media credibility and reshape relations between the media and the public. The proposed law establishes a Media Ombudsman at a time when nations are grappling with information disorders such as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, which have eroded trust in news organisations. This is a time when, due to the aforementioned, there are concerns about ethical journalism; hence, the establishment of a Media Ombudsman provides an opportunity to strengthen accountability without necessarily undermining press freedom. The Bill establishes an independent Office of the Media Ombudsman under the Media Council and gives it the power to receive complaints, mediate disputes between members of the public and the media, recommend remedies, and promote ethical journalism. Unlike courts, which are often expensive, formal, and slow, the Ombudsman is designed as a non-judicial, accessible mechanism for resolving media disputes. For a country long proud of its democratic governance but often criticised for limitations on media freedom and access to information, the proposal could prove one of the most crucial media landscape reforms since independence. From way back, Botswana's media environment has operated under a mix of statutory regulation, professional self-regulation, and ordinary legal remedies such as defamation litigation.
However, members of the public who felt wronged by inaccurate reporting, ethical breaches or unfair coverage often faced a difficult choice. They could either complain directly to the media house involved, with no guarantee of satisfaction, or pursue expensive legal action in court. Neither of these options has proved ideal. This sad reality was compounded by the fact that court proceedings can take years and require financial resources that many ordinary citizens lack. At the same time, internal complaints procedures within media houses frequently lack public visibility and independence. Therefore, the proposed Ombudsman seeks to bridge this gap. According to the Draft Media Bill, the Ombudsman will be an “independent, impartial, and non-judicial body” responsible for resolving complaints concerning journalistic conduct and media content. Importantly, the legislation states that the Ombudsman shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the performance of duties. This independence is critical because public trust depends largely on whether complainants perceive the process as fair and free from political or commercial influence. Media Ombudsman role Under the proposed Draft Media Bill, the Ombudsman will have four principal responsibilities. Firstly, the office will receive and investigate complaints relating to media content and journalistic conduct. Secondly, it will mediate disputes between citizens and media organisations through non-adversarial processes.
Thirdly, it will recommend remedies such as corrections, apologies and retractions. Finally, where serious ethical breaches occur, it will refer matters to the Ethics and Conduct Committee for further action. According to the Draft Media Bill, the Ombudsman will also have the power to summon evidence, hear the parties involved in disputes, and facilitate mediation procedures. Of great importance is that this model prioritises resolution rather than punishment. This is consistent with international best practice, where media ombudsman systems are generally designed to improve journalism and restore public confidence rather than impose harsh sanctions. Further, the Bill requires the Ombudsman to attempt resolution of complaints within 30 days, creating a potentially faster and more efficient process than traditional litigation. In view of this, one of the enduring tensions in media governance is how to ensure accountability without creating opportunities for government interference. In many countries, media regulation has often become a vehicle for censorship.
This is by way of governments justifying restrictions on journalism in the name of accountability while simultaneously suppressing criticism. Therefore, the Draft Media Bill attempts to avoid this danger by embedding the Ombudsman within a broader framework that strongly protects journalistic freedom. Furthermore, to ensure the protection of free speech, Part VIII of the Bill guarantees freedom of expression, the protection of journalistic sources, safeguards against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), protection from arbitrary surveillance, and access to information. These provisions indicate that accountability mechanisms are intended to operate alongside, rather than in opposition to, media freedom. Consequently, the Ombudsman represents an important middle ground between unrestricted media conduct and excessive state regulation. South Africa, Sweden & US lessons Through this Bill, Botswana is not entering into an entirely new territory. Perhaps the most relevant regional example comes from South Africa, where the Press Council and Press Ombud system have operated for years as a recognised mechanism for media accountability. In South Africa, the Press Ombud is responsible for “independently and fairly resolving complaints” against the media. The Press Ombud receives complaints from members of the public regarding newspapers, magazines, and digital publications that subscribe to the Press Code. So, rather than imposing criminal penalties, the Ombud focuses on mediation, corrections, apologies and adjudications. This system has been credited with improving ethical compliance while preserving editorial independence.
The system has been hailed for providing accessibility to ordinary citizens. Through the system, citizens can lodge complaints without hiring lawyers, reducing barriers to justice and enabling quicker dispute resolution. As a case in point, the South African experience denotes that independent complaints mechanisms can improve public trust while avoiding heavy-handed regulation. Similarly, Botswana’s proposed Ombudsman harbours the same spirit. Internationally, this system also exists in Sweden. The Swedish example is regarded as one of the oldest and most respected media accountability mechanisms. As background, the Swedish Media Ombudsman traces its roots to a self-regulatory tradition developed more than a century ago. The office investigates complaints regarding violations of journalistic ethics and may refer cases to the Media Ethics Council. For this, Sweden consistently ranks among the world's strongest democracies and highest performers in press freedom indices. Notably, its accountability mechanisms coexist with exceptionally robust protections for journalists. To that end, the Swedish model demonstrates that accountability and press freedom are not competing values. Instead, they can reinforce one another. In addition, several major American news organisations have historically employed internal public editors or news ombudsmen. Among the most notable examples were The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which maintained independent figures tasked with investigating reader complaints and scrutinising newsroom practices. While some organisations later discontinued these positions for financial and structural reasons, their existence highlighted a growing recognition that journalism benefits from transparent accountability. In this role, public editors frequently criticised their own organisations when standards fell short, helping to build credibility with audiences.
As a result, there are emerging lessons for Botswana on the need for credibility and for independent institutions to hold the media to account. Therefore, the Draft Media Bill comes at a critical juncture, when trust in news media is waning worldwide. The rise of social media, disinformation campaigns and politically polarised information environments has made audiences increasingly sceptical of traditional journalism; hence, Botswana has not been immune to these global trends. Against this backdrop, the Ombudsman could serve as an important trust-building institution. This is mainly because citizens who feel aggrieved by inaccurate or unethical reporting would have access to a formal complaints process. Equally, journalists would have an opportunity to correct errors and demonstrate accountability without immediately facing litigation. As per the Bill, the Ombudsman may recommend apologies, corrections and retractions rather than punitive sanctions. This reflects a growing international consensus that restorative approaches are often more effective in media disputes than punitive measures. While the media is bound to err, the primary concern of many complainants is not financial compensation but the correction of the public record. In this regard, a prominent correction or apology can often provide greater satisfaction than years of legal proceedings. So, by prioritising restoration, the Ombudsman model promotes dialogue and learning rather than confrontation.
Challenges Despite its promise, the proposed Ombudsman faces possible challenges. The first concerns perceptions of independence. Although the Bill provides safeguards, public confidence will ultimately depend on transparent appointment processes and demonstrable autonomy. In doing so, the legislation requires a publicly advertised recruitment process and stipulates that the Ombudsman possess at least ten years of experience in journalism, law or human rights. The second challenge concerns resources. An Ombudsman without adequate staffing, funding and investigative capacity may struggle to handle complaints effectively. The third challenge concerns public awareness, without which even the best-designed institution cannot succeed if citizens do not know it exists or how to use it. Thus, continuous public education will therefore be essential. The fourth challenge concerns balancing rights. Here the Ombudsman must carefully navigate competing interests, including freedom of expression, privacy, reputation and the public's right to know. The significance of the Ombudsman becomes even clearer when viewed within the broader context of the Draft Media Bill. Thus said, if implemented effectively, the office could provide Botswana with a credible alternative to costly litigation, strengthen public trust in journalism, encourage higher professional standards, and reinforce the constitutional value of freedom of expression. The Draft Media Bill 2025 therefore deserves attention as a potential turning point in the evolution of media governance in the country.
The success of the Ombudsman will rely on its independence, resources and public credibility. Should it be implemented in the spirit envisioned by the Bill, the institution could become an important safeguard for both media freedom and public accountability in Botswana's democratic future. This is pivotal in an era when there is a growing threat to media freedom and a thin line between freedom of expression and self-restraint by the media due to political hostility and a lack of legal mechanisms for journalistic protection. Equally, the new-age media challenges posed by the proliferation of social and digital publications in the wake of disruptive digital technologies necessitate responsibility as the media navigates emerging ethical dilemmas.
This is summed up in the Social Responsibility Theory of the Press, stressing the need for media organisations to benefit society. This was first brought to the fore by the Hutchins Commission in the 1940s, which called for a socially responsible/ acceptable press. This was detailed in a report titled “A Free and Responsible Press.” In this regard, essentially, balancing media responsibility and journalistic independence is therefore important in detailing the need for an Ombudsman.