- She should be the first victim of cabinet performance contracts
Adam Phetlhe On Sunday
The Assistant Minister of Trade and Industry, Beauty Manake and SPEDU board chairman Obonetse Mothelesi have through their omissions and commissions demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that they are not fit and proper persons to occupy their respective plum positions and should as a consequence, be immediately relieved of the same. On one hand, Manake has on the basis of allegations levelled against her in the press breached the good corporate governance prerequisites by getting personally involved in the operational functions of the SPEDU board while on the other, Mothelesi appears to have succumbed to political pressure by allowing himself to be tossed around by Manake on matters exclusively the preserve of the board. If Manake’s boss Minister Mmusi Kgafela is to be taken seriously, he must urgently cause the removal of Mothelesi while the boss of the two members of cabinet President Masisi must also cause the removal of Manake from the executive. In fact, Manake has made it much easier for Masisi to remove her while Mothelesi has done the same for Kgafela to remove him. So what are the issues about Manake and Mothelesi?
Manake is reported to have influenced the SPEDU chairman to reconsider the board’s decision not to renew the contract of employment of Mr Jazenga Ueseza whose position was that of the Director of Strategic Projects. The board’s decision was not to renew his contract and when Manake learnt about this decision, she called the board to her office and ‘arm-twisted’ it to abandon its earlier decision not to renew the contract but to renew it. At all material times when Manake was pursuing her shenanigans it would appear her boss Minister Kgafela was unaware that her subordinate was possibly plunging the ministry into an unnecessary legal challenge by Ueseza and more importantly, bringing the government they serve under intense scrutiny. By the time Kgafela became aware of the shenanigans his subordinate has been pushing, it was too little too late. The irreparable damage has been committed by Manake. It appears Manake has developed the propensity to interfere in board decisions. In 2021 when she was the Assistant Minister of Agriculture, it was reported that she had instructed the Botswana Agricultural Marketing Board (BAMB) to reinstate Rre Leonard Morakaladi to the position of Chief Executive Officer after he was allegedly dismissed. To its credit, the BAMB board is said to have resisted Manake’s ugly overtures.
As a member of the board and importantly as its chair, Mothelesi is expected to have known that Manake or any other Minister for that matter should not interfere in employment matters of an organisation such as SPEDU. Employment contract of a Director is the preserve of the board. Once the board has taken a decision on such contract, Manake would have been informed on a need-to-know basis. Nothing more and nothing less. For Mothelesi to have allowed to be ‘arm-twisted’ by Manake to reconsider the board’s decision on Ueseza is not only a dereliction of duty but wilful complicity to wrongdoing. Mothelesi should just have respectfully told Manake to back off and keep to her lane because Ueseza’s matter as is currently reported required none of her input in whatever manner. The questionable manner of how he handled the matter under discussion could suggest his board may have been interfered with by either Manake herself or any member of the executive. What is not in doubt however, is that the SPEDU board under Mothelesi’s leadership has proved on the balance of probabilities to be susceptible to interference and manipulation. It’s a red flag to breaching good governance.
What should happen to Manake in light of the SPEDU matter? The President must simply release her from her position in government in light of the recent performance contracts he signed with his cabinet members. If he does not, it will be a mockery of his promise that he wants to run a clean government at all levels and like I have already said somewhere above, no one will take the President seriously. If she is not fired, it will be a classical example of Manake being the untouchable. A weekly newspaper is running with the headline ‘Masisi launches Operation Ceasefire in SPEDU saga’ wherein the first sentence of the story says ‘President Masisi has allegedly attempted to put out the fire that is likely to take centre stage in the controversial SPEDU case where two cabinet members have been implicated’. The import of this sentence is that the President does not intend to take any further action against Manake save for some miraculous intervention from somewhere. It is safe to say the President has been fully briefed on this matter. What seems to be lacking is his decisive action to lay down the law. Any cabinet member against whom drastic action will be taken for some misconduct of sorts will be justifiably aggrieved on the basis of selective justice. Manake has brought the name of the President and his government into disrepute.
While Kgafela is fully aware that her subordinate has goofed big time, he cannot take action against her but the President. However and as the board appointing authority, Mothelesi’s fate is in his hands. As a legal scholar, Kgafela may be waiting for the case to be concluded such that he has all material facts before him. If the matter is settled out of court as it is suggested in some quarters, he will have no option but dismiss Mothelesi and possibly the entire board for the simple reason that they failed to stand the ground against Manake on a matter that was properly before them to deal with without any interference from her. The inability to do so is a red flag that in future, even more damaging misconduct could be on the way. It is in the public domain that State Owned Enterprises are badly performing owing to the sheer ineptitude of board members where in the process, government loses a lot of public funds either through legal or other challenges created by such board members.
Manake and Mothelesi have through their omissions and commissions rendered themselves not fit and proper persons to serve in a public office. Under normal circumstances and if they were persons who subscribe to the principles of good governance and unquestionable conduct as public officers, they would long resigned to save their reputations and that of the offices they hold. What is left is for their principals to act and decisively so. Masis’s Reset Agenda cannot come to fruition when public officers like Manake and Mothelesi are still conducting themselves in a manner completely against the ethos of good governance and the Reset Agenda itself. What more should Manake do to demonstrate to her principals and the public that she is not fit for purpose? Your guess is as good as mine. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself!