When floor crossing becomes flawed; the awkward case of Kgosi Tawana Moremi

Owen Nsala | Wednesday February 1, 2017 17:08

For many, the stage was set to see if any notable change to homesteads budgets are on the horizon, or the speech will be hollow and idle to the melancholy of our citizenry.

On the day of the occasion, an amendment to the predictable agenda was presented and  an announcement was  made that Kgosi Moremi Tawana, the Maun West legislator  is no longer a member of the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) and that effectively necessitated a change in the sitting arrangement in Parliament.

The announcement by the Speaker, by and large, took the attention away from the Budget Speech as the resignation of Kgosi Tawana took acres of space on newspapers. Clearly, I have fallen victim to the bug. 

Following his resignation from the UDC, and on reading newspaper reports, it has now become public debate whether Kgosi Tawana is still a member of the Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD), which undoubtedly is a big game player in the UDC and if so, how that will work out.

It is accepted that on his public interactions with the media, the Member of Parliament (MP)  for Maun West regards himself as a member of the BMD.

How then is it possible that one cannot be a member of the UDC, but be a member of the BMD? 

I posit that such an arrangement creates an unnecessary conundrum and I wish to make read of the constitutional documents of both the UDC and the BMD and conclude that Kgosi Tawana  is  a member of the UDC until his resignation from the BMD.  

The UDC Constitution envisages circumstances where one becomes eligible to be a member, on his own accord and wisdom. 

Amongst those circumstances, looking particularly at the line of discourse herein, one can either apply as a political party registered in Botswana, or apply as an individual if that individual is above the age of 16 and is a citizen.

A political party is formed by individual members and if the political party joins the Umbrella, its members inevitably become members, be it by default.

One would conclusively assume that Kgosi Tawana  was a member of the UDC on his own account and on the account of his party, being the BMD which is without a doubt a member of the UDC. 

The constitution allows at clause 6 for individual membership and group membership by way of a political party or any grouped organisation. On his analogy, Kgosi Tawana has resigned from the UDC but remains a loyal servant of the BMD.

I find such an arrangement to be untidy and hard to comprehend simply because the BMD is a member of the UDC and under clause 6.2 of the UDC Constitution is regarded as a group member. Effectively, by his allegiance to the BMD, he cannot disown the Umbrella.

Whereas the Group members enjoy some autonomy, they are obliged to obey the constitution of the UDC and its policies.

Kgosi Tawana cannot therefore represent the BMD in Parliament to the exclusion of the UDC. His views cannot be deemed to represent those of the BMD.

That is where it becomes untidy and messy.  How does his BMD differ with the BMD of Ndaba Gaolathe?

If indeed Kgosi Tawana is a member of the BMD, then he has effectively undermined the oath that he took on joining the BMD.

In terms of clause 5.1.6 of the BMD, on being accepted, one shall make a solemn declaration to a person empowered to administer oath and agree that he shall abide by the aims and objectives of the party and shall abide by the party policy positions.

To the extent that his party has agreed to join the UDC, Kgosi Tawana will be at variance with his party position if he was to be recognised as an independent member of parliament under the BMD?

How does that even sound?  Whose voice will he be championing in parliament if his Party does not recognise him and the Constitution of the UDC does not recognise autonomy of individual members of Political Parties?

The BMD Constitution mandates a member who holds elective office to be part and parcel of party caucuses, to function within its rules and to abide by its decisions.

The Constitution further allows for a member who disagrees with the caucus for reasons of his conscience to say so in the caucus and further that he wishes to take the position dictated by his conscience on that particular subject.

Assuming we proceed on this clause and in favour of the Maun West legislator, how comfortable will his party be, dealing with a man they surely know disagrees with the parenting organ that is the UDC?