War Without Bloodshed

By Tshireletso Motlogelwa
Staff Writer | Monday July 9, 2007 00:00

 

Recent events indicate that Mao may have been right on many fronts. A good example is the feud between Parliament and cabient over the privatisation of Air Botswana. The government is pressing ahead with negotiations with Airlink of South Africa on the privatisation of Air Botswana despite the Parliamentary motion that purported to halt the process. The MPs' argument hinged on whether the negotiations were going against the Privatisation Policy and the related laws like the Air Botswana Transitions Act and the Civil Aviation Regulation (Reform) Act. At the height of the public spat between the two arms of government the Attorney General, Athaliah Molokomme,  who came out and said that as far as she was concerned, cabinet had done nothing to flout the laws and the policy.

A fierce public debate ensued in which different opinions for and against the cabinet's position were expressed. Works and Transport Minister, Lesego Motsumi indicated that cabinet would go through with the negotiations despite Parliament's disaproval. The war came to exemplify the power struggle between a powerful cabinet and a Parliament slowly growing in confidence.

It is this increasing confidence, many argue, which brought about the meeting of the Parliament's Committee on Subsidiary Legislation to tackle the issues relating to cabinet's negotiations regarding the national airline.

The committee, chaired by Dumelang Saleshando of the Botswana Congress Party (BCP) suddenly found its relevance perhaps after a somewhat docile history. As the controversy raged, the committee summoned Motsumi, Molokomme and government economic adviser Nico Czypionka for a hearing. The objective was to scrutinise the events that led to the continued negotiations against the parliamentary motion and ultimately compile a report to Parliament to chart the way forward. Insiders say that cabinet is increasingly unhappy with the newly confident Parliament and did not like the idea that senior officers in government were called to account to the committee.

And there is the matter of the AG, the legal adviser to the executive - and until recently Parliament. Parliament now has its own counsel, Lizo Ngcongco. When the AG indicated that there was nothing illegal about the negotiations, she was at odds with Ngcongco. The parliamentary counsel had indicated earlier to a local newspaper that Parliament had the legal power to influence cabinet business.

The BCP recently indicated that it would sue government over the Air Botswana privatisation. On the 1 June 2007, Bayford and Associates, acting for BCP wrote to the Attorney General stating their case. The complainants are the BCP and Saleshando, and the respondent is the AG. 'Our client take the view that the conduct of the executive arm of the Botswana government as represented by the cabinet, in the Air Botswana privatisation exercise is unconstitutional, unlawful and is in violation of various legislative instruments, government policies as well as the principles of the rule of law and good governance,' says a letter from Dick Bayford for BCP to the AG. Among other arguments, the BCP contends that the exercise transgresses the mandate extended to cabinet by Parliament through the Privatisation Policy, the AB Transitions Act and the Civil Aviation Regulation (Reform) Act. It also maintains that cabinet's disregard of the parliamentary resolution calling for the suspension of the negotiations is in violation of the Constitution of Botswana.

It is reported that the AG has indicated to the committee that she had problems with Saleshando chairing the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation when it deals with the AB privatisation while on the other side he is cited in the BCP's case against government. A source said the AG argued that Saleshando could use some of the privileged information gained from the committee proceedings to help the BCP case. This was allegedly brought to the attention of the committee members who called a meeting to deliberate on the issue. The ensuing vote on Saleshando resulted in a 4-4 stalemate. One member is said to have abstained.

However, the AG denies ever questioning Saleshando's role in the committee. 'I never complained to anyone to that effect. I am surprised that the media continues to peddle these stories about this and journalists never make an attempt to ask me. It is totally false that I ever complained to the committee,' explains Molokomme.

BCP secretary general Taolo Lucas acknowledges that there may have been issues of conflict of interest arising out of Saleshando's two roles but the way the issue was handled smacks of underhand if not illegal tactics. 'If indeed the matter was brought to the committee by the AG, then we think that is wrong. It is questionable whether the AG has any jurisdiction over parliamentary business. We also think that there are a few more options in this case apart from voting out the chairperson. The chairperson can be asked to recuse himself from the deliberations relating to that specific issue. On the other issues, he would remain in his role,' explains Lucas.

Sources inside the committee reveal that Ngcongco informed the members that he had received a call from the AG voicing her concern over Saleshando's position. 'Ngcongco explained that the AG had raised her concerns that she was uncomfortable with the fact that Saleshando was in the committee while he was cited in the case papers. It was very clear that the AG wanted a different situation,' explains one source.

Ngcongco could not be reached for comment. As with all other failed coups, contradictions abound, and it may be that the truth, bloody as it is, lies somewhere else, away from the theatrics of political gamesmanship. And as the final battle between Parliament and cabinet over privatisation draws nearer and nearer, and the pressure piles on those at the centre of the wrangle, many more unanswered questions will arise.