Recent weeks have witnessed a national debate of unprecedented intensity on the significance of the parliamentary motion calling for the suspension of the negotiations on the privatisation of Air Botswana. Most of those who participated in the debate were of the view that the adoption of the motion obliged the government to suspend the privatisation negotiations. They argued that as a popularly elected arm of government, the National Assembly had both the right and the power to demand that the negotiations be brought to a halt. According to the Attorney General's statement, this argument is not valid.
I share the AG's view on this matter. Although I am not a lawyer, I find her arguments convincing. Apart from that, my experience of this country's system of government over the years fully corroborates the views of the AG on the Air Botswana negotiations. I know, for instance, that over its 41 years of existence, the National Assembly adopted hundreds of motions on different subjects, only a few of which were ever implemented by the various governments that the country has had. The rest of the motions were simply ignored; and I assume that this was because the governments concerned did not consider the motions to be consistent with their policies. This makes sense because under our system of government, the cabinet rather than Parliament is responsible for managing the affairs of the country. And if anything goes seriously wrong in this regard, it is the cabinet and not Parliament that takes the blame.
