Molapise faces challengers for the BPP presidency

Chakalisa Dube | Wednesday February 3, 2016 16:27

Maripe contested the presidency position at the party’s one-day conference in May 2013, but lost to the incumbent president, Motlatsi Molapise.

At the same congress Maripe also challenged Kumbulani William for the position of vice president (VP), but also lost. Prior to the 2013 conference Molapise indicated that he would step down, but was forced to change his decision by some party members who felt that he has something to offer the party.

Strong indications within the BPP camp are that Lenyatso and Maripe are likely to challenge Molapise who is yet to confirm his candidature for the position.

Molapise said that he would stand if BPP followers believe that he still has something to offer the party.

“I could have long stepped down had it not been for the party members who wanted me to continue as the party president,” Molapise told Mmegi yesterday. An insider within the party said that both Lenyatso and Maripe have been lobbying for the party structures to support their candidature. However, yesterday when contacted for comment, Lenyatso said that he is yet to decide if he would contest the presidency. “Although it is still early for me to decide if I should contest the elections or not, I believe that there is need to revive the party as a whole. I can only confirm if I am contesting or not once the writ of the elections has been issued.”

Maripe who is the son of the late co-founder and former BPP president Dr Knight Maripe would also not confirm  his participation.

“I can only talk about contesting the elections once the writ has been released,” he said in his short response.

Molapise said that the writ for the elections is likely to be issued at the party central committee meeting in two weeks’ time. 

The party usually holds its electoral conference in the month of May after every three years.

�deed introduce the 100 Monuments Programme and subsequently, I believe, the second hundred, but this was surely at the President’s specific directive! Before then, it had drifted, unaware and unconcerned that the country has its own legacy of historic buildings which needed to be documented and if possible, saved.

 

Now, in the light of the President’s challenging comments, it would make much sense for the Department to list those historical buildings of value which we have lost in the last 50 years. But let me now bring attention to just one of such buildings, not least because the President had hit so hard at Serowe – the magnificent but now totally derelict Arthington Hall of 1931. 

How could it happen that the LMS (UCCSA), the Serowe community, the Ministry, and the National Museum Department had zero interest not only in saving such a significant historic building but in utilising a community asset of considerable value?