But during voting on Wednesday, out of 40 BDP MPs who were in Parliament, only 37 supported the Bill. Despite preaching unity at the weekend congress, three MPs showed that they are not with Masisi and did not vote for the Bill. As a result, the BDP MPs who supported the Bill could not reach a two-thirds majority, which is a requirement by the constitution for a constitutional review to pass. When the Speaker of the National Assembly, Phandu Skelemani, announced that the Bill has failed, a loud applause from the public gallery hit hard on the ruling party, which has always been divided. Speaking directly to his party members, during the party’s National Congress in Tlokweng, Masisi had emphasised the importance of accountability, reminding them that their election to office was a mandate from the people, which they must respect. Transitioning to his plans, Masisi said he would be travelling with only one MP, making it imperative for the others to attend Parliament. He stressed that there should be no excuses for absenteeism, particularly during this critical juncture when MP Kabo Morwaeng presents the Bill.
Further reinforcing his point, Masisi acknowledged that while some MPs might initially resist the amendment, the government is prepared to reintroduce it after securing victory in the coming elections. This, he noted, is in response to the clear demand from Batswana for a constitutional review, underscoring the importance of the proposed changes. The constitutional review has sparked mixed reactions, particularly among civil society organisations that believe the process was mishandled and lacked proper procedures. These groups feel they were not formally included in the process and that the Commission responsible omitted important issues when making its recommendations. One of their main concerns is that the Commission ignored key topics such as the call for Batswana to have the right to directly vote for the President. Additionally, some critics argue that the public was not adequately informed about the critical aspects of a constitutional review, leading to discussions on matters that might not significantly impact constitutional changes. Civil society organisations also feel that their position paper was completely disregarded by government, further fuelling their dissatisfaction with the process. A political analyst, Lesole Machacha, on Wednesday said during the interview: “Normally, political parties do vote according to what the caucus has agreed but once they do not agree, then there is a problem. Caucus undermines democratic and constitutional rights which are not good. MPs are in Parliament to represent the will of the people but they end up failing to do that.”
