Our presentation is structured into three key sections. The first provides a historical overview of Botswana’s media landscape over the past 15 years or so, particularly regarding previous administrations’ attempts to introduce media laws. The second examines different regulatory approaches to media governance. The third highlights the urgent priority for Botswana’s media industry, which faces an imminent existential threat.
The new government’s commitment to repealing the Media Practitioners Association Act (MPAA) and related laws presents a significant opportunity to establish a framework that ensures accountability while safeguarding press independence. Policy interventions are designed to address existing or anticipated challenges. We assume that the administration has identified critical issues within the media landscape—both in terms of legislation and industry operations—and seeks to resolve them effectively.
Historically, Botswana’s media has resisted government-imposed regulations under the premise of protecting industry independence and accountability. During the early years of the Ian Khama administration, the late Clara Olsen of the Gazette newspaper, alongside other publishers and MISA, led efforts to pressure the government into repealing the 2008 Media Practitioners Act (MPA). Their position was clear: the media does not require parliamentary legislation for self-organisation; rather, the government should create a conducive environment for industry growth.
At that time, the local media demanded the repeal of all restrictive laws outlined in the current “White Paper.” The then Press Ombudsman of South Africa, Joe Tlholoe, along with renowned media activist, the late Raymond Louw, were invited to Botswana, and conducted seminars on self-regulation and engaged government officials with the view to persuading government to abandon the Act. Although the administration did not repeal the MPA, it also did not fully enforce it.
The MPA was amended in 2013 under pressure from the media fraternity, making it more acceptable but still flawed. These flaws are well-documented and we will not repeat them in this paper. We believe that the current administration’s reform efforts must be more enduring than previous attempts. The media, like any other industry, requires regulatory certainty. Continual legal modifications, depending on the government in power, undermine stability and growth.
There is broad consensus that Botswana’s media should adopt a self-regulation model. The debate lies in its implementation. Previous administrations claimed that their versions of media legislation provided a self-regulatory framework. However, both the MPA and MPAA incorporated government oversight through the Minister for State President, contradicting the principle of independence.
The current administration, according to the White Paper, seeks to introduce a modern law aligned with international best practices. This raises the question: what constitutes international best practice?
Globally, two primary regulatory models exist: The first one is pure self-regulation. This model, prevalent in the United States, Namibia, South Africa, and Britain, does not involve statutory laws governing media operations. Instead, independent media councils, established and run by industry professionals, ensure that ethical standards are upheld and accountability. This approach works well in countries with robust media industries that can self-fund their regulatory bodies, ensuring independence and integrity.
The second one is a hybrid model (statutory-backed self-regulation). This model combines constitutional guarantees with statutory and self-regulation mechanisms. Previous administrations in Botswana attempted this approach, which was rejected by local media stakeholders. A statutory framework, even with self-regulation elements, risks government overreach, as seen in several African nations where such laws suppress press freedom.
The Kenyan model, established under the Kenya Media Act 2013, exemplifies a statutory approach that has gained media acceptance. The law outlines a transparent, independent process for forming the Media Council of Kenya (MCK), reducing direct government interference. The Kenya constitution of 2010 makes this possible because it has certain safeguards built into it to restrain government overreach. However, concerns remain about government influence and the imposition of heavy fines, which could lead to self-censorship.
We argue that the current constitutional framework of Botswana lacks the safeguards necessary to prevent government overreach under a statutory regulation model. Our primary contention with the MPAA was Clause 61, which granted the Minister for State President excessive powers which could be prejudicial to the media.
Ultimately, the media and the Task Force must determine the best regulatory model for Botswana—one that protects press freedom while ensuring accountability. Botswana’s press has thrived for 58 years without the application of restrictive media laws. The notion that a media law is essential for responsible journalism is misleading. In fact, the local press was more robust and fearless before the introduction of these failed regulatory attempts.
In our view, ideally, this regulatory discussion should have been postponed until the upcoming constitutional review, ensuring that whatever new media laws are eventually agreed to align with Botswana’s revised foundational legal framework.
