The vice-president must live long enough

LEDIRETSE MOLAKE | Friday March 12, 2010 00:00

It was this, answered Cyrus, one of the big boys of the school having a small coat, gave it to a little boy and took away from him his coat, which was larger. Our master having appointed me arbiter in the dispute, I ordered that matters should stand as they were, as each boy seemed to be better suited than before. The master, however, remonstrated with me, saying I considered only convenience, whereas justice ought to have been the first concern, and justice teaches that no one should suffer forcible interference with what belongs to him'.

The Vice President is reported as having said the declaration of assets law will be made on their terms. In terms of the constitution parliament shall make law for the good government of Botswana. This suggests that where the 'terms' of the lawmakers conflicts with good government, then the 'terms' of our lawmakers must give way. Our Vice President seems to place his convenience over the constitutional duty to make law for the good government of Botswana. In time though his position will yield to the constitution. All that one may ask for is that he lives long enough to see it happen, for happen it will.

When a leadership uses what for lack of a better word one may call fronts or stiri boys a declaration of assets law presents problems. This is because such a law will result in a public document that carries certain legal consequences. Imagine a situation were the front or stiri boy holds significant wealth on behalf of a cabinet minister. If the minister does not include these assets in his declaration he would have problems claiming the assets from the front in future. The minister would have a tough time explaining why he had failed to declare these assets in the first place. I suspect that our ministers are still trying to find a way out of this difficulty.

Of concern though is not what ministers or senior civil servants are hiding or wish to avoid. If good government requires that ministers and senior civil servants declare their assets and liabilities, as seems to be the case, then that is the only consideration that should inform our lawmakers. They have no choice on the matter. For so long as this provision obtains in our constitution, they have to give it effect by passing supporting legislation. We must appreciate that the constitution does not detail every aspect of good government; it merely points us in that direction. 

Imagine a situation where thirty people sit in room A, and decide to make a law on a particular issue. Ten of them leave and sit in room B, and resolve not to support the making of the law. They then rejoin the twenty who remained in room A and their spokesman informs the others that they have decided not to support the making of the law. Imagine a situation where the rules are that those who go into room B must account to those who are in room A. This quite clearly suggests a hierarchical relationship with room A being superior to room B. I do not believe the team that went into room B has the right to overrule the decision taken in room A.

What I set out above is the relationship between our parliament and cabinet. The president cannot obstruct the law making process to resist a law. Once cabinet formed the opinion not to support the law on declaration of assets, during Rre Mogae's reign, the president should still have provided parliament with the resources to make the law, and resisted the law by refusing to assent to the law when passed by parliament. The president's failure to instruct cabinet to present the law amounts to withholding of resources, because our parliament does not have independent legal drafting personnel. The president's conduct was obstructive and quite clearly defeated the spirit and intent of our constitution.

Also disturbing is the Vice President's view that politicians are not objective. If you are not going to be objective why do you need to know anything or have independent staff?   This explains why we have in parliament people who have no training in law, making laws with supporting staff provided at the whim of the executive. We must not forget that we are competing with other nations for space and resources. We cannot compete effectively if our leaders are not objective. We will be overrun by nations that are led by objective politicians. It is already taking place under Rre Merafhe' watch. Then again in Botswana a man can stay in parliament for more than twenty years, and when his best years are clearly behind him, he is made Vice President. Such a person looks at the position as a reward instead of a call to duty.  Such a person has no interest in the future.

There have been recent reports about some unfortunate souls who have been brought before court to justify their living standards. They will be forced to declare their assets and liabilities to justify their living standards. Surely this law intrudes into these people's privacy even though they are presumed innocent. Our cabinet ministers' fear of the law is therefore odd. There is already a law that can expose their dirty linen, if any. Our Vice President's position that he is not a crook suggests that he knows that the same law cannot be applied to him. This puts into doubt the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and our criminal investigation institutions and also gives credence to the view that the law is applied in a biased fashion. Our Vice President's comments harm our governance institutions.

I must caution that some commentators seem to suggest that a declaration of assets law will require ministers to account for how they acquired their wealth. This is not correct and creates unnecessary confusion and expectations on the part of the general public. That is not the purpose of the proposed law. A declaration of assets law is forward looking and is not a historical lens. As a general rule laws are not retrospective. Its purpose is to deal with possible conflicts of interest and other governance issues after its enactment. It is not a criminal investigation tool. Accounting for how one got one's wealth is dealt with under different laws as shown above. We should not create unnecessary friction and expectations.

What transpired in the past, during Rre Mogae's reign, was a violation of constitutional process. We must appreciate that we are not to be held captive to the wrongs of prior administrations. An error in failing to grasp the essence of our constitution by former regimes cannot forever handicap future generations. We are free to chart our way that is in line with the objectives of our constitution. Rre Shaleshando's motion must therefore be seen from the perspective of being remedial, rectifying a wrong, and bringing us into line with our constitution.  Why should we wait till the end of the year before we align our governance with the constitution?

Our leaders very often forget that we each have only one life. They in the process fail to appreciate the urgency of issues. Delay in formulating this law will result in some of our people passing on, never having enjoyed good government. What benefit accrues to these people by delay in formulating this law? It is sad to die knowing that a few self-centered people denied you the privilege of being governed properly. Our leaders cannot honestly profess to uphold human dignity if they cannot appreciate such basic things. What benefit accrues to our leaders from this? Nothing.

There are those who subscribe to the view that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I cannot understand how Christians who are a majority of our people can subscribe to this view. The Christian God is supposedly all-powerful, but all Christians hold that he is not corrupt. To know why a man is corrupt one must therefore not look at the power that he wields but at what is in his heart. When a man who has power to choose between what is in the interests of good government and his private interests, chooses to place his private interests over good government, it is not the power to choose that corrupts him, but his choice manifests what is in his heart.

Rre Khama is now in charge, there is nothing that binds him permanently to previous violations of the constitution. He has sworn to uphold the constitution. Well, the constitution requires that we legislate for good government. I have been told that a blind old man of Serowe who initially supported Tshekedi in his fight with Seretse, after carefully listening to what Tshekedi had to say at the kgotla, stood up and said 'Jaanong ke go utule, sephetso ga se bolae monna', when he changed sides to back Seretse.

If Rre Khama in the past chaired a cabinet meeting that resolved not to present a declaration of assets law to parliament, nothing binds him permanently to that position. After all he was not president then. The buck stopped with Rre Mogae.

As for the old soldier; it has been said that old soldiers do not die, they just fade into the sunset. Perhaps the BDP should buy the old soldier a red horse.