Former BCL care and maintenance employees cry foul
correspondent | Monday October 19, 2026 06:00
Request for fair treatment, clarification
and an opportunity to purchase houses
occupied by former BCL employees
We respectfully submit that this decision raises serious concerns about fairness, consistency, equal treatment and the criteria being applied in determining who qualifies to remain in the houses.
During the previous meeting involving former BCL employees who were not directly employed by BCL, chaired by the District Commissioner, our understanding was that employees who had been allocated houses by the liquidator by virtue of their former employment with BCL would be protected from eviction.
The recent developments appear to contradict that understanding, leaving us uncertain about our position. We therefore request clarification on the following matters.
* Equal recognition of all former BCL employees Our understanding is that in October 2016, BCL employees were closed out of the mine gates, resulting in the loss of employment for many workers. Subsequently, BCL's assets were placed under the care of the liquidator.
We understand that former BCL employees, including those who later worked under Care and Maintenance, entered into lease arrangements with the liquidator. We recall that employees queued at Makhubu Club to sign lease agreements under the administration of the then liquidator, Mr Nigel Warren Dixon.
We therefore consider ourselves former BCL employees, just like those who left employment in 2016 and those who later worked under Care and Maintenance. Our concern is that no former employee should be treated as more deserving than another solely because of the period in which they left employment or the circumstances under which they occupied a house.
* Clarification of the criteria for allocating houses
We respectfully request that the relevant authorities clearly explain the criteria that will be used to determine who qualifies to remain in or purchase the houses. Why should an employee who occupied a house under the liquidator's arrangements be required to vacate so that another former employee can be allocated the same house? What objective criteria distinguish an employee who left BCL in 2016 from one who continued working under Care and Maintenance and was subsequently retrenched? Some former employees have secured employment elsewhere, while others have not been fortunate enough to find another job. Others continued working under the liquidator until the eventual closure of Care and Maintenance operations. These differences in employment history should not, without a clear and fair policy, become grounds for treating former employees unequally. We believe that all qualifying former BCL employees deserve transparent and consistent consideration.
* Request for the opportunity to purchase the houses Our preferred and, in our view, fairest solution is for the government or the relevant authority to offer the occupied houses to the current occupants for purchase, subject to eligibility requirements, valuation, affordability and the applicable government housing policy. Those who qualify and are able to purchase should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Where an occupant is unable to purchase or does not qualify under the established criteria, the house may then be considered for allocation to another eligible beneficiary in accordance with a transparent process. We believe this approach would balance the government's housing objectives with the circumstances of former employees who have occupied these houses under arrangements made during the liquidation period. It would also recognise that the current occupants have established their homes in these properties and that their occupation may have helped ensure that the houses remained occupied and cared for.
*Equal opportunity under government housing initiatives
We understand that the government is purchasing or facilitating the acquisition of houses for eligible citizens. We appreciate this initiative and recognise the government's intention to assist citizens in accessing housing. However, we respectfully submit that we are also Batswana and should be afforded the same opportunity as other citizens who meet the relevant eligibility requirements. We understand that giving former BCL employees priority may be an act of compassion and a way of addressing the hardship caused by the closure of the mine. We welcome such an initiative. However, we believe that it should be implemented fairly and consistently, without unnecessarily disadvantaging one group of former employees in favor of another. We therefore request that current occupants be assessed under clear criteria and be given a fair opportunity to apply for the houses they occupy.
* Concerns regarding the role of the task team We respectfully question whether the task team has completed the mandate assigned to it and whether it is now appropriate for its role to be reviewed by the relevant authorities. We are concerned that conflicting statements and decisions may be contributing to confusion among former employees. We therefore request clarification on the task team's current mandate, the limits of its authority and how its recommendations relate to decisions made by the District Commissioner and other responsible government officials. If the task team has completed its assignment, we request that the appropriate authorities consider whether its continued involvement is necessary. Any further decisions should be guided by the established government policy, the law and the responsible authorities, rather than by personal opinions or differences among former employees. We also appeal for any concerns about possible bias, personal grievances or conflicts of interest to be investigated objectively. Our intention is not to attack any individual, but to ensure that the process remains fair, transparent and credible.
*A call for unity and a fair resolution The former employees who are currently occupying houses and those who are waiting for accommodation are our colleagues. We worked for the same organisation and have all been affected, in different ways, by the closure of BCL and the subsequent liquidation process. We do not believe that one group should be placed against another. The issue should be resolved through a fair process that recognizes the rights, circumstances and eligibility of all concerned. We are particularly concerned that removing one former employee from a house in order to accommodate another, without transparent and consistently applied criteria, may deepen divisions and create unnecessary conflict among people who have already experienced significant economic hardship. We therefore appeal to the District Commissioner and the relevant government authorities to intervene, clarify the position and ensure that decisions are not influenced by personal grievances, emotional reactions or disagreements among members of the task team.
* Conclusion
We wish to emphasise that we are not opposed to the government's housing initiative, nor do we seek to deny other eligible citizens an opportunity to benefit from it.
Our appeal is simply that we, too, be treated fairly and that our circumstances as former BCL employees allocated houses through the liquidator be properly considered.
We believe that offering current occupants a reasonable opportunity to purchase the houses, followed by the allocation of any unpurchased houses to other eligible beneficiaries, would be a more balanced and constructive solution.
We remain willing to engage with the District Commissioner and the relevant authorities in good faith to find a lasting resolution that protects fairness, promotes unity and respects the interests of all affected former BCL employees.
We respectfully request your urgent consideration and a written response to the concerns raised above. Yours faithfully,
*On behalf of the affected former BCL Care and Maintenance employees occupying houses allocated by the liquidator.