03 Feb 2014

Ntlo Ya Dikgosi has unanimously adopted two bills that were referred to it by Parliament.

The first was the Constitutional Bill NO 18 of 2013, which was adopted with an advice for Parliament to consider urgently, a consequential amendment of Section 82 (e) of the Constitution. Section 82 (e) of the Constitution states that “A member of Ntlo Ya Dikgosi shall vacate his or her seat in the Ntlo Ya Dikgosi upon the dissolution of Parliament.

The Constitutional Amendment Bill, which was tabled as private members’ bill by Lobatse MP, Mr Nehemiah Modubule, sought to amend section 68 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Botswana to provide for the right of members of Parliament to continue as members of the National Assembly up to and including the last day preceding a general election, notwithstanding the dissolution of Parliament.

Members, among them, Kgosi Mosadi of Balete, proposed for the amendment of Section 82 (e) of the Constitution because it was equally affected as Section 68 (1) (a). She argued that it was appropriate for MPs to continue with their mandate as legislators until the last day before the general elections. She proposed that the same amendment should also apply to Section 82 (e) of members of Ntlo Ya Dikgosi, which resulted with the Bill being amended to include advising Parliament to consider amending Section 82 (e).

The other bill adopted by Ntlo ya Dikgosi is the Marriage Persons Properties Bill No 22 of 2013 whose objects is to re-enact the Married Persons Property Act with amendments. The amendments include introducing the concept of change of property regime and providing safeguards to enable spouses, after the solemnisation of their marriage, to change the property regime they opted for, before marriage.

The other amendment is to introduce a form of proof for an out of community of property regime, for persons whose properties are not subject to customary law. Presenting the bill, the Minister of Labour and Home Affairs said the existing law did not provide for a form of out-of-community of property as it was interpreted that the presumption for out of community of property prevails.

He said this had proven problematic as it has come to light that the proof actually required from spouses was that their property was held out of community of property, and because of lack of such proof, spouses had assumed the in-community of property regime, as proof of that is never required.

The other amendment, Mr Batshu said, was to increase the number of days of registration of instrument with Deeds Registry from 90 to 180 after the execution of such an instrument.

Minister Batshu explained that this was because sometimes back, more than 400 forms of in-community of property did not arrive at the Deeds of Registry on time, thereby leaving the married couple to be considered as persons married out-of-community of property. The minister explained that the bill was not meant to change the Customary Law Marriage Act.

Earlier on when commenting, Kgosi Maruje III of the North East region observed that the bill, when adopted into a new law, would have an impact on the rights of women and children on the basis of economic value. Kgosi Maruje III explained that it was time for Botswana to have a comprehensive family law that would regulate and determine the future leaders of this country. He said he did not doubt that Batswana would welcome the bill wholeheartedly because many people lost their properties in the past.

Kgosi Basiamang Garebakwena of Kweneng region welcomed the bill, noting that it would help to ensure that one party in the marriage did not stand to lose upon learning that he or she was used when they got married in community of property. They law would now afford such a person to switch to the other option. ENDS