'Why we resigned'- BNF board
| Friday February 1, 2008 00:00


We wish to make it clear that the ex-Board had no intention of running a public war of words with the Central Committee. We also wished to state in no uncertain terms that the resignation of the Board was not related to the factional tensions that seem to continue to trouble the organisation. The Board has administered and supervised electoral processes leading up to this point, just as it did for the Molepolole Central Committee elections, without fear or favour. And up to this point no-one can accuse the ex-Board of having taken sides in any BNF internal spats. We had generally kept clear of the day to day partisan politics in the party in keeping with the requirements of our job. Many Constituency Elections Committees will attest to the fact that the Board has continually urged them to do likewise to protect the integrity of the internal electoral process.
It was never the intention of the Board to respond to any of the allegations in the press. But we are forced to respond to the unsavoury assertions that our resignation is a natural and expected consequence of the factional tensions in the party. We wish to state categorically that our resignation was prompted by the differences in interpretations between us and the Central Committee, about who instrumentally drives the electoral processes in terms of the BNF constitution, which we deem to take precedence over a section of the Primary Elections Regulations that has been inserted to portray the Board as a sub-committee of the Central Committee.
We are dismayed that the fundamental cause of these differences has now, naively, simplistically and mischievously, been reduced to the Letshabo/Moupo factional tensions. We are also disturbed by reports that we are now labeled as a group with the express intention of destabilizing and destroying the BNF and vilifying the name of the BNF President.
As the former Elections Board, we ran the Molepolole Special Congress elections in which Comrade Moupo emerged as the winner. If we were so preoccupied with factional fights surely the faction we are said to be fiercely in support of could have fared better than they did or at the very least we would have declined our re-appointment to the Board. We would also have withdrawn our work within the party. It is a well known fact that some of us have served the party with commitment and dedication in the post-Molepolole period.
As most people know, working for an opposition party in Botswana entails heavy use of one's family and personal resources, because the BDP has steadfastly rejected calls for public funding of opposition parties. It thus boggles the mind that after such sacrifice, working with this 'faction' that we are alleged to 'hate', we are now labeled enemies of the party. That is but an excuse to avoid looking at issues objectively. The 'factional' story has been milked for too long to hoodwink BNF members. I trust that our work in Molepolole and in the post-Molepolole period will bear testimony to our values and vision as disciplined members of the party who worked without fear or favour. These are values we hold dear as members of our beloved party.
The BNF National Elections Board was established by the party's constitution with the primary intention of running fair, free and credible elections. The Board was never established as a mere sub-committee of the Central Committee, as some suggest. In fact it is telling that in his letter to the GUARDIAN of 21 December 2007, the Information and Publicity Secretary of the party specifically refers to the Board as the National Elections Committee. That is a distortion of the stipulations of the BNF constitution, which takes precedence over any document that may seek to alter the organizational status of the Board. The spirit of the particular section of the Constitution was to create the Board as a structure that would remain untainted by the ambitions and aspirations of those standing for BNF internal elections or those desiring particular outcomes from such internal elections. The sole objective of distancing the Board from all of these was to protect the interests of all candidates by ensuring that internal elections were run as freely, fairly and as credibly as possible.
Many BNF members embrace this noble ideal as enshrined in the party Constitution. Reducing the Board to a mere sub-committee of the Central Committee would without a doubt compromise the objective of running a credible election process. This is because generally most Central Committee members as senior members of the party usually stand for primary elections and their participation in the work of the National Elections Board would therefore constitute serious conflict of interest. No self respecting organization would deliberately compromise its internal democracy in this way.
Our work in driving the processes towards the 2008 primary elections has likewise been conducted with the utmost professionalism. We have deliberately distanced ourselves from any political controversies within constituencies and swiftly reprimanded Constituency Elections Committees that appeared to favour some candidates over others, irrespective of whether such Elections Committees were headed by people that are personal friends to some of us. The goal of running credible, fair and free elections was our primary focus and had no room for people bent on influencing the electoral process in their preferred direction.
While I am writing this I must take this opportunity to inform BNF members that my response in the Monitor newspaper, in which I denied the resignation, was prompted by our basic respect for the office of the President of the BNF and the Central Committee. At the time the Newspaper's reporter called me, I did not think the President had received our letter of resignation and it would have been remiss and unethical of me to have confirmed or made public statements at that point. There are some organisational values that must never be sacrificed at the altar of self promotion and in this instance, the former Board made the decision to abide by those values, as an example of the importance of respecting the processes and procedures of an organization. We have been soundly criticized for my denial of the resignation in the Monitor but it is a decision we stand by.
In conclusion, and much against my better judgment, I wish to publicly state the issues that led to our collective resignation from the National Elections Board. (This is important because the waters have been so muddied-up that the central issues have been overshadowed by mischievous speculation and innuendo).
* The Central Committee amended the election writ without reference to the Board, there by leading to charges that this action was taken to benefit certain individuals. The Board was perceived by some as having been party to this decision. This perception compromised the integrity of the Board and electoral process.
* The Information and Publicity Secretary of the BNF indicated in his letter to the Guardian of 21 December 2007 that the Board was a mere sub-committee of the Central Committee and that the Central Committee had the power to make any decision it deemed fit with regard to the elections processes. This was an unexpected statement, taking into consideration the BNF's well documented criticism of the BDP's interference in the work of the Independent Electoral Commission.
The ex- Board, individually and collectively, had no political ambitions to diminish the authority of the Central Committee or to settle personal or political scores. Neither did it see itself as unaccountable to the Central Committee. But it expected full consultation which would be followed by empirical-evidence- based decision-making, taking account of the sensitive nature of primary elections and the fragility of emotions at such times.
* The Primary Elections Regulations clearly stipulate the vetting procedures. They also state, by implication, that the Central Committee is the last port of call for vetting candidates. The expectation here is that vetted lists from constituencies and wards are confirmed by the Central Committee. But while the ex-Board was communicating with Constituency Elections Committees on dates and procedures for this aspect, the Board was informed that the Central Committee had finalized the vetting exercise.. The Board was left with egg on their face as constituencies demanded explanations. While we had always advised constituencies and wards to proceed with caution over the highly divisive vetting exercise and were relieved that there were no fallouts this time around, we were dismayed by the lack of consultation by the Central Committee despite their prior knowledge that the vetting processes were in full swing as per the Board's instructions.
* The proverbial straw that broke the camels back (thanks to the gift from Libya) was the total exclusion of the Board from the compilation of the Voters Rolls. The flood of new memberships to the party was unprecedented and it was clear all was not well. Attempts to impose previously agreed closing dates for new members getting into the Voters Rolls were brushed aside and new closing dates were imposed without consultation with the Board. It became clear at that point that the Board had lost control of the electoral process and had become glorified messengers to the Central Committee. We consulted a prominent member of the Central Committee but despite his promises to ensure full consultation and respect for laid down procedures, we came to the conclusion that we had become embroiled in a process devoid of credibility and that our resignation was for the best.
We wish to remind BNF members that:
* Disagreements leading to our resignation do not imply that we are enemies of the BNF who simply wish to add to the woes that the party is facing. The ex-Board had the democratic right to resign from what they saw as a flawed process and while some people may disagree with this assertion, it must nonetheless be respected.
* In a democratic set-up, which we have always deemed the BNF to represent in preparation for taking over state power, criticism of questionable decisions does not warrant declarations of an all out war against the ex-Board. It is unacceptable that any criticism against the leadership is mysteriously labeled 'hatred for the ruling faction' and the BNF. It is quite honestly baffling that expulsions are being mooted. This is unfortunate and does not bode well for the future of the party.
* The ex-Board has now been branded the 'Letshabo faction'. Where was such labeling when some of us supported the work of the party at every turn, using our meagre family resources as we moved from one part of Botswana to another as part of the effort to restore the BNF to its former glory? The BNF has always taken pride in its fearless criticism against the mistakes/lapses of judgment of those in authority. The context within which the resignation of the ex-Board has occurred must be seen in the same light.
* We remain committed members of the party and will put in the usual high levels of energy in execution of party work.
Lebohang Letsie
Lopang Maphale
Justice Moilwa
Joba Nnoi