21 May 2019

Molepolole/Lentsweletau councillors have rejected a motion calling for provision of services to Shonono in Letlhakeng/Lephepe constituency.

They stated that the decision could encourage mushrooming of settlements in the district.

Presenting the motion during the just ended sub-council meeting, Ngware/Botlhapatlou councillor, Mr Orelathile Selatlho called for provision of potable water to Shonono lands through the installation of 10 000 x 2-litre water container.

Mr Selatlho said it would be unfair for the sub-council to reject his motion when some areas within the district with similar status were made to benefit under a similar arrangement.

Shonono is an area situated 14 kilometres west of Shadishadi with a population of 149 people.

Councillors, however, had different views on this matter some saying it would be wrong to accept the decision as it would encourage mushrooming of settlement contrary to the National Settlement Policy, while others felt some areas had benefited before under the same arrangement.

Most of them said the council would be setting a wrong precedence to provide services to an unrecognised settlement contrary to the National Settlement Policy, which states that for an area to enjoy the status of a settlement, it should have a population of 500 people.

Nominated councillor, Mr Motlhophi Leo said the council had no plans to supply portable water to unrecognized settlements since provision of water fell under the jurisdiction of Water Utilities Corporation (WUC).

The sub-council’s senior assistant council secretary, Mr Gofaone Kgabanyane, said provision of water fell under the jurisdiction of WUC stating that the decision would lead to contravening the National Settlement Policy.

Another motion tabled by Loologa councillor, Mr Mookami Mantimane called on the sub-council to instruct the audit department to audit 2017/2018 and 2018/19 constituency community project  .

The decision according to Mr Mantimame will help expose unfair awarding of tenders to councilors and council officials whom he said were made to benefit at the expense of some qualifying Batswana who were allegedly left in the lurch.

He also raised concern over the escalation of pricing that he said raised eyebrows, adding they were being unnecessarily hiked to benefit selected individuals.

However, Mr Leo countered the motion on the argument that it was not correctly channeled stating that the matter could have been dealt with at the committee stage and made as a recommendation to the sub-council by the audit committee.

The senior assistant council secretary stated that he had a problem with the fact that the motion was mainly on hearsay since it lacked supporting evidence that the councillor could have used to argue his case. ENDS