21 Jul 2019

Parliament has rejected a motion presented by Gaborone Central MP, Dr Phenyo Butale which called for the Expansion of the Bill of Rights.

Despite the lengthy debate by MP’s  the motion failed to pass as 15 MPs voted against  it while only 9 voted in the affirmative.

In debate of the motion, Minister for Presidential Affairs Governance and Public Administration, Mr Nonofo Molefhi dismissed the need to expand the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to include socio-economic and cultural rights so as to ensure justiciability of such, saying government had already been providing fundamental basic human necessities in the absence of such regulatory statutories.

Minister Molefhi highlighted that government had however undertaken a resolution to carry out a comprehensive constitutional review after this year’s general election.

He said Botswana had, even in the absence of regulatory laws provided services, citing the provision of social safety nets which addressed areas of social security not in terms of the pronouncements on social security but rather addressed existing gaps in community welfare.

Mr Molefhi indicated that the fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the constitution if broadly explored would cover all the issues that motion entailed.

He said government had gone further in making provision in other laws to substantiate the current constitution.

Contributing to the debate, Gaborone Bonnington North MP, Advocate Duma Boko stated that the first generation rights in the constitution imposed a negative obligation on government.  

He highlighted the need to take the constitution a notch higher and accommodate positive obligation on government and hold government accountable to the provision of the right to work, the right to quality health care and the right to shelter as well as other socio-economic rights and amenities.

Advocate Boko stated that government should make a constitutional commitment to provide employment opportunities to every citizen willing to work, failure to do so should constitute to an unemployment benefits as a means of acknowledging its failure.

He therefore said there was no need to adopt the motion and further advocated for an urgent comprehensive constitutional review. Ends