Constitution serving the country well � BDP
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Tuesday July 25, 2017 16:07
Keorapetse had tabled a motion that Parliament resolve to review the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana. The country’s Constitution was drafted in 1963 prior to Botswana’s Independence and has never been holistically reviewed.
However, Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) MPs rejected it through a vote saying it was not necessary to review the Constitution as it has served the country well for 50 years.
When motivating for the motion, Keorapetse said it is time Botswana had a Constitution which is representative of all its citizens. He said Botswana’s colonial masters drafted the current Constitution as a transitional document meant to give Botswana Independence.
He said the country’s democracy could only be consolidated through a review of the Constitution and development of democratic institutions.
“It was a template Constitution given to us by our colonial masters when we gained Independence. Majority of Batswana were not involved. No women, youth and civil societies were represented at the constitutional talks in 1963 in Lobatse,” Keorapetse said. The motion presents the opportunity to legitimise the Constitution and make it owned by Batswana who were not well educated in 1963. He continued; “I believe in the intelligence of the majority. They will say what should be induced in the Constitution. Through this review, we will achieve even more democracy”.
He stated the approach to amend some sections of the Constitution through a piecemeal is not good. He indicated the current Constitution gives and authorises dictatorship by the President.
Keorapetse said the Bill of Rights, and provisions relating to Bogosi, needed to be reviewed and amended, but that could only be done through a commission of enquiry seeking input of Batswana.
However, Minister of Defence, Justice and Security Shaw Kgathi opposed the motion. He explained that the Constitution has 127 provisions and a holistic approach would not be cost-effective both in terms of resources and time.
“The review, as the mover proposes, is a preliminary and elementary thing. The process would take time,” Kgathi said.
He highlighted that it would have been easier had Keorapetse pointed out the problematic sections or clauses that needed to be changed.
He said a review of the Constitutions in neighbouring countries was necessitated by a change of government.
Despite getting support from his fellow colleagues in the opposition, the BDP MPs inevitably rejected the motion following voting.