Govt, UN clash with NGO group
Tefo Pheage | Wednesday March 30, 2016 16:24
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) NGOs Group, comprising of Botswana Council of Non–Governmental organisations (BOCONGO), DITSHWANELO, Kuru Family of Organisations, LeGaBiBo, MISA Botswana and Rainbow Identity Association‘s main contention is that the government and the UN have sidelined them as evidenced by their recent exclusion from three international benchmarking missions.
The government and the civil society have been working tirelessly behind closed doors to respond to international calls for the production of a Comprehensive Human Rights Strategy and National Action Plan (CHRSNAP).
NGOs however this week broke ranks with the government and UN - an advisory partner after they were ‘sidelined’ from three international benchmarking missions.
They said they are concerned that the government of Botswana and the UN in Botswana are engaged in processes concerning the establishment of a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) without the strategic engagement of civil society organisations.
“To date, three NHRI Benchmarking Missions have been undertaken to Ghana, Namibia and Tanzania. This was done without the inclusion of civil society, as stakeholders during the preparatory processes for the Missions or as members of the delegations on the Missions,” they said in a statement. NGOs say between 2015 and 2016 the NHRI Benchmarking Missions for delegations of the government of Botswana and the UN in Botswana were undertaken to benchmark human rights institutions in Ghana, Namibia and Tanzania. The purpose of their visits was to share lessons learned in the area of human rights which will facilitate the establishment of a National Human Rights Institution in Botswana.
In an interview with Mmegi, Ditshwanelo (the convener of the meetings) official, Irene Mamvula, said they do not know what has led to their exclusion. “We are equally clueless on the reasons that have led to our exclusion. We have made efforts to enquire but there are no answers,” she said.
She said NGOs are a part of the global human rights movement. “They contribute to international, regional and national standard setting. They contribute to the promotion, implementation and enforcement of human rights norms. So, if you leave them out who are you representing?” she asked, further noting that NGOs work closely with the communities and should, therefore, play a role in the preparatory processes for the creation of an NHRI. But the UN says the NGOs accusations are unfounded. In response to Mmegi, UN official, Boipelo Bosele, conceded that NGOs have not been part of recent trips but moved swiftly to defend NGOs exclusion.
“Yes, there have been two benchmarking missions, one to Ghana in the last quarter of 2015 and another to Tanzania in March 2016. Under the directive of the Government of Botswana, development partners including UNDP, coordinated benchmarking missions to enable the Government of Botswana to gain first-hand experience of other NHRIs, with the possible mandate and function of a similar institution being set up in Botswana,” she said. UN continued that, “the non-participation by NGOs or any other stakeholders in these particular missions does not imply in any way that they are not being part of the process. Therefore, it is premature for any stakeholder to claim that they are being sidelined.”
UN further said that international best practice suggests that all stakeholders, including NGOs, are brought on board. “Therefore, it is the intention of UNDP to continue to advocate for a broad and inclusive process which leaves no one behind.”
The acting Ombudsman, William Moncho, said he does not know why the civil society was snubbed for the benchmarking visits.
“We are only a beneficiary as the Ombudsman. There are those who have the powers over the issue and that’s the Ministry of Defence, Justice and Security. It is however true that the civil society was not part of the benchmarking missions and I would not know why,” Moncho said.
The Minister, Shaw Kgati said NGOs should know that they cannot be invited for everything every time. “Some things are internal, if we have to invite them we will,” Kgati said.
Sources say the government could still be bitter because NGOs initially favoured a different model or framework of the institution. The civil society had proposed a people-centred South African approach where the institution emerges as part of a larger national transition based on meaningful participation of Batswana while the government has chosen to strengthen the Ombudsman.
The government had initially sought assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to analyse the Ombudsman Act. The government was thus advised on establishing a wholly independent institution but chose to stand by the Ombudsman.
Inaccuracy in newspaper article attributed to the acting ombudsman
We spoke about the subject, and as indicated, I wish to correct an inaccuracy in your newspaper article titled GOVT, UN clash with NGO group, which appears on page four of your Mmegi newspaper of 30 March 2016.
In the said article, I am cited as having said that I did not know why the NGOs were snubbed for the benchmarking visits.
This can’t be true especially if one has regard to the last sentence on the next paragraph, where it is indicated, correctly so, that I did not know why the NGOs were not part of the benchmarking visits. The above sentence itself flows directly from the other one where I explained to your reporter that the programme was coordinated from Ministry of Presidential Affairs and Public Administration (MOPAPA), not the Ministry of Defence, Justice and Security (MDJS), hence MOPAPA would be best placed to say why the NGOs were not part of the benchmarking.
I could not therefore have said, and I did not say that I did not know why they were snubbed, for I could not say if they had been snubbed.
I also told your reporter that the Office of the Ombudsman had not received any complaint from any NGO about their non-participation in the benchmarking visits, hence still, I could not say they had been snubbed.
It is also incorrect that I ever mentioned the MDJS in relation to this subject, for I am sure that they are not involved with it. As indicated above, the ministry responsible for the coordination of this programme is MOPAPA.
Kindly therefore correct the inaccuracy as agreed. Thank you.