More to Jacobs’ saga than meets the eye

“Cde, attacking government under any excuse equates to treason in my books. I welcome attacks from the BCP and BDP, but attacks from within are inexcusable and are punishable in the most severe manner. Don’t play victim! I don’t have time for petty talks that’s me. I am principled and I will die for principle! You have crossed the line with what you have done to the government.” These words are allegedly attributed to President Duma Boko or one of his security detail. The recipient of these messages so continues the allegations, was the Member of Parliament for Lobatse Hon Kamal Jacobs. It would later emerge on the floor of parliament through Jacobs that the messages had been sent following his question to the Minister for State President Hon Moeti Mohwasa on the appointment of Chief of Staff-the appointment the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) had as recently as 2021 viciously criticised labelling it amongst others, as the politicisation of the public service. It goes without saying that any question on the matter would put the UDC on the spot.

The UDC should have foreseen this consequence whether it was asked by one of its own or anyone from the opposition. Would an innocent question from Jacobs be equated to treason in the event it was deemed a serious misconduct by the UDC at party level? It cannot be! Can it objectively speaking, be said the question was meant to attack government? By no means! Let us bear in mind that UDC Members of Parliament, like those from the opposition, are there to ask Ministers hard, difficult and uncomfortable questions in the name of accountability and transparency amongst others. Some UDC MPs are showing signs of asking those hard and difficult questions like Hon Arafat Khan who is adamant if I understood him correctly that the President should have long fired some senior public servants with questionable conduct from the previous administration. A UDC structure in this instance being Madibelatlhopho, is reported to be unhappy with the way the UDC is dealing with some issues particularly those it deemed the party consistently criticised while in opposition. One of the issues that has not sit well with some UDC members/ activists is the appointment to cabinet of some individuals who were not in the trenches with the party during difficult times while in the opposition. While it is not unconstitutional for the President to appoint such individuals, the thinking in the UDC members/activists is that their own Comrades were robbed of those cabinet positions.

What is more to the Kamal saga than meets the eye?

The most obvious in my view is the silent attempt to emasculate UDC MPs from asking Ministers the hard, difficult and uncomfortable questions like I have already alluded to. This position was adopted by the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) in the 12th Parliament when its former MPs like Rre Reggie Reatile tried to exercise his independent mind in parliament. To stop independent thinking by its MPs, the BDP quickly enacted the floor crossing law. Luckily for Reatile and others, they crossed to the opposition before law took effect. At the time, BDP President M.E.K. Masisi felt somewhat insecure from independent thinking MPs like Reatile. The same seems, on the basis of Jacob’s intriguing saga to be repeating itself at the UDC where its President also seems uncomfortable in his MPs asking hard, difficult and uncomfortable questions. There is every reason to conclude UDC MPs will be silently stifled from exercising their independent thinking on issues the party would feel highly exposed if not embarrassed once they are brought to the fore. Seeking accountability and transparency from the executive is not easy. The President could very have exacerbated the situation. The fact that the Office of the President (OP) has decided to adopt a No Comment approach to the Jacob’s saga in which the name of the President is mentioned should be seriously concerning. When the office adopts this approach, it somewhat says it is too embarrassed to proffer a response because the President or his body guard indeed threatened Jacobs because it is almost impossible to dispute messages from his phone. If no such messages were sent from the President’s phone, the office would have wasted no time in disputing Jacob’s assertions. My view is that by adopting this approach, the matter will die a natural death. At this point and with no response from OP, one is left with no option but to believe Jacobs. This saga has exposed the double standards of the President. On one hand, he is calling on Batswana to intensely probe him and presumably his government as well. I applaud him for his call. On the other, he seems to take offence at the very intense probity he advocates for. Assuming the President was not happy with Jacob’s question on the appointment of the Chief of Staff, he would have quietly met him to address the matter by persuading to withdraw it. That said, the question went through the requisite processes and procedures. It cannot in the circumstances be deemed to have been asked in order to embarrass the party. It is reported the question was noticed late last year. For all intents and purposes, the Minister for State President and the President himself had more than sufficient time to persuade Jacobs to withdraw it if they felt it could politically damage the UDC government. 

One thing that cannot be ignored is that the Jacob saga has brought unintended consequences with it. Firstly, it has cast a doubtful intention whether or not the President walks the talk on the freedom of speech aspect. Like already alluded to, the President will be viewed as someone who takes offence at views different from his. Secondly, the saga has sent a negative view to the international community on Botswana’s democratic credentials-that an MP would be threatened with treason-an offence punishable by death. Thirdly whether or not Jacob’s complaint with the police will be thoroughly investigated to establish its veracity or otherwise. Given that OP has gone under the rock on this matter and that the police are under the same office, it is safe to suggest the matter could end up swept under the carpet. To compound it, the President of Botswana is not legally touchable while in office. As I sign off, it will be remiss of me not to say the Kamala Jacobs saga has demonstrated the inherent power relations in politics where an MP would be brutally subjected to that power relations dominance. The saga has demonstrated that the executive still rules supreme over parliament. In the process, this conduct does not accord with human rights mantra that is being thrown around. It is possible Jacobs has been sanctioned not to speak about this episode. UDC MPs will henceforth be executive minded. In the end, we may know the truth about what happened given that OP has gone under the rock on the matter. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself! 

adamphetlhe08@gmail.com