Masire-De Beers: the civil coup of 1987

LEDIRETSE MOLAKE | Friday February 26, 2010 00:00

Our people are interested in answers to two simple questions; how does democracy obtain in a situation where the ruling party is financed by the government? and why the President should not declare the BDP an unlawful society?

The class differences within the BDP Youth suggest that the sons and daughters of the ruling elite are faced with a dilemma. They have to choose between democracy and preserving their fathers' reputations. For a long time Khama was a foil that they could use to justify their democratic credentials. They could use his alleged dictatorship to avoid tackling serious issues of democracy. They could pretend to speak on behalf of ordinary members. The disclosures about BDP funding have dealt them an unfortunate body blow.

It is in the public domain that the Republic of Botswana is a 15% shareholder of De Beers. What the funding of the BDP by De Beers means is that the government of Botswana financed the BDP. The Young Turks have to explain and justify how in an alleged democracy, one party, the ruling party, can be funded by the government to the exclusion of other political parties. The reason I focus on the young within the BDP is that this issue is about them; a class difference dynamic is at play within the BDP youth movement.

One of the De Beers managers stated that they were happy with the way that the country was being run, hence the funding. Given that the Republic of Botswana is a shareholder in De Beers, this suggests that the government of Botswana was happy with the way the BDP was running the country and therefore rewarded it. With due respect to the youth in the BDP, this is complete madness. If I were a young member of the BDP I would be very ashamed to be associated with this. The prerogative of choosing who runs this country is ours, it does not belong to De Beers or to the government of Botswana. Surely their belief in democracy is not localised to the BDP internal elections but extends to the entire country.

It has further been reported that we obtained only 3% of what was available in the global diamond market, even though we were world leaders in gem diamond production. It is an insult to our collective intelligence to be told that securing 3% of what is available is a sign of good government. It is an insult to our morality and appreciation of human dignity to be told this when a significant proportion of our people live in abject poverty. The interests of the sons and daughters of the working poor cannot be the same as those of the sons and daughters of the elite, that had a share in the 3%. A BDP youth living in the poorer sections of Gaborone where there are pit latrines cannot pretend that he has not been hurt by the BDP government's failure to get more out of diamonds. 

There has also been an attempt, by De Beers and Rre Masire, to create the impression that our country's perspective has changed from what it was twenty-five years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. The provisions of our constitution dealing with the test of a democratic society have to my knowledge never been amended. We have always taken the perspective that what our government and leaders do must conform to the ideals of a democratic society. To therefore suggest that there has been a change in perspective is to insult our collective intelligence.

Imagine a situation where you inherit 200 head of cattle that give birth to a 100 calves. You then keep three calves for yourself and your children, and the herdboy takes the rest. The herdboy then glorifies your astuteness and gives you one calf back so that you can pay the Indian storekeeper from whom you took supplies on credit, because the Indian storekeeper is refusing to extend you further credit. The herdboy gives you another calf in secret so that you can buy promotional materials to brainwash your children into believing that they have the best father in the world. When this relationship is exposed you say; 'people have changed, now they look at things in a different light'. Talk about farmers being on loan to politics. If this is what farming does to a man, then it should be banned. 

The farmer on loan to politics then tells the children that his taking of the calf to pay the Indian merchant, did not affect his dealings with the herd boy, and did not compromise his children's interests. Of course the taking of the calf did not affect his dealings with the herd boy because there was never any dealing. He was just a cost item in the greater scheme of the herd boy. His role was to legitimise the looting of the children's heritage. To suggest that he negotiated any deal with the herdboy is to flatter his ego. He was in with the big boys and out of his league. This is the problem with Botswana, we allow people who are not ready to lead to occupy positions of leadership. We then send them to play with big boys. They then do this country and themselves a lot of harm.

The elite in the BDP subjected this country to a civilian coup in 1987. In terms of the Penal Code Rre Khama can make an order declaring a society an unlawful society. Surely a society that executes a civilian coup threatens the peace and order of the country and must therefore be declared an unlawful society. When a Sunday Standard columnist, Watchdog Column, sarcastically stated that Rre Khama should dissolve the BDP in view of the Court of Appeal decision, I do not think he ever dreamt that his paper would provide Rre Khama with justification for declaring the BDP an unlawful society.

In terms of the Motswaledi case a president can only act in one of two capacities. The Court of Appeal held that it could not add to these capacities. Surely a president cannot purport to be able to do what the Court of Appeal could not do. A president cannot therefore purport to act as a director or a shareholder of a company. Masire and the BDP cannot therefore set forth the corporate veil to avoid the consequences of his relationship with De Beers.

That would add to the two capacities. He stopped being president the minute he, through GM5, entered into a composition with De Beers. The BDP is therefore guilty of executing a civilian coup by allowing him to remain in office in 1987.

Effectively the constitution lifts the corporate veil for every person who becomes a president. This makes sense for otherwise creditors would be able to sue a sitting president in his capacity as a director. Creditors would also otherwise be able to ask the courts to lift the corporate veil and to get to the president in his capacity as a shareholder. If the constitution did not lift the corporate veil it would not be effective in protecting a sitting president against suits for things done, or omitted to be done by him in his  capacity as a shareholder.

Further Masire and De Beers have themselves lifted the corporate veil. De Beers admitted to extending Masire some financial assistance and he has himself attempted to justify why he accepted the financial assistance. His statement and that of De Beers are in the public domain. They were intended to show the nation the nature of the relationship.

The corporate veil cannot be set up at their convenience to avoid the fact that Masire had disqualified himself from being president and from standing for election to the office of president, and that the BDP executed a civilian coup in 1987. In countries that uphold the rule of law leaders of a society that executes a coup are arrested and brought before courts of law. Our statute of limitations is 30 years so the 1987 leaders of the BDP can still be brought before our courts.

Rather than Khama being the destroyer of the BDP, it is a founding member, who boasted that he once showed his Kgosi his place in the new order, who violated the national constitution, and who abandoned the founding ideology of the party, who is responsible for the demise of the BDP. A people whose prior conduct destroys the credibility of its young has no future. The BDP ruling elite has done just that. It is not Khama's responsibility to build a platform for the children of the elite who betrayed the nation to regain their credibility.

Rre Khama knows that his opponents in the BDP do not have the courage to give it all up for a cause. He knows that his opponents pine after the BDP brand. They have no identity outside the BDP. He will push his opponents as far as he can, for he knows that for so long as they are within the BDP fold their followers will vote BDP. His opponents will therefore deliver the vote but have no power. The former BDP leaders' credibility is destroyed so his opponents within the party have no reference point. Of course they could have a reference point if they were genuine advocates of democracy. If they were they would stand with the country against their fathers' actions.

They would ask Rre Khama to declare the BDP an unlawful society. I believe he is waiting for them.

As regards the opposition I believe I have set out enough material for them to institute a private prosecution should the Directorate of Public Prosecutions decide not to prosecute the coup plotters of 1987. This is a test of the opposition's commitment to constitutional order and the respect for democracy.  In the event that the opposition elects to do nothing I believe it is duty bound to explain to its followers where I am wrong in what I set out above. In my view asking the DCEC to investigate or calling for a commission of enquiry is to pursue peripheral issues. The substantive issue is the unlawful exercise of presidential power by a person who was not properly qualified to do so. The opposition must respond.