Response to MD Lecha

| Thursday May 20, 2010 00:00

It should have rather been placed under Opinions, although if I were Editor, I probably would not even have published it!

Their argument is premised on 3 issues: 1) Sidney Pilane's nationality and whether that allows him to hold political office, 2) legality of Pilane as an Advocate and 3) the legitimacy of Pilane's law firm. None of these are of national interest as MD Lecha claims. They are rather petty and not worthy of any serious consideration. I thus write this to challenge MD Lecha to desist from submitting such weak and ill-informed notes in future.

*Does the Constitution stipulate that only Batswana can hold leadership roles in societies and other voluntary clubs and forums, which is what political parties are? To my understanding it is only when one campaigns for political office as an MP or councillor that citizenship comes into play. 

As far as our knowledge on Sidney Pilane's stance goes, neither he nor the BMD have ever suggested he wants to run for political office. Given this, MD Lecha's letter is completely irrelevant, especially on issues relating to Pilane's 'qualification to positions of leadership in Botswana'. If Pilane submits his name for political office, this may be an issue. But for now, MD Lecha is running ahead of  himself.

*I, and I believe a lot of other Batswana also, do not see what difference it makes what a volunteer's title is. As someone who works for a non-profit organisation, whose programmes are mostly achieved through the support of volunteers, we could not care less if they were an army private or general.  So long as we have not engaged such people professionally, but have them volunteering time and resources of their own volition, it does not matter whether they're an advocate or just a lawyer. Thus MD Lecha's questioning of whether Pilane is an advocate or not is immaterial.

If BMD engaged Pilane professionally, then his legal qualifications may be an issue. But the party is not, unless MD Lecha knows otherwise, although he/she hasn't provided any evidence. So there is no need to waste the Attorney General's time and our taxes on this.

*Whether Sidney Pilane has been submitting audited books or not is of interest only with respect to the legality of his professional office, not his personal involvement in a social forum. If MD Lecha wants to question the legality of Pilane's Law Practice, he should address that to the Law Society.

But even then, this would only be of interest for those people engaging him professionally, not for those where he is volunteering his time, at no charge. If Pilane was providing legal services to BMD, and charging them, then this would be an issue, but unless MD Lecha provides such evidence, the less said on the matter, the better. I do not want to 'play the man', only the ball, but MD Lecha's letter reads as though he has some hidden motive, as it is neither objective, nor addressing what he claims to do i.e. enabling people to 'better know their leaders'.

With regards to knowing our leaders, no-one has ever thought to ask, nor should they even bother, what the correct work title of volunteers were, if their business was properly registered and regularly audited etc. unless they were soliciting professional, rather than personal services from such.

Does it matter if the many University of Botswana lecturers volunteering at many of our political parties hold a PhD (which is expected of academics)? Does it matter that we have never seen their full 'official'/Omang names?  Do we even care if their privately run businesses are audited. Nope,and so it should be for Pilane.

Try something else MD Lecha, and next time, be more objective, or out-rightly state you are intimidated by BMD!

Regards,Jajas, Mmopane