..As President Boko vows no return, no surrender
GAZETTE REPORTER
The Botswana Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (BOCONGO) has launched a campaign against the proposed Constitutional Court.
In a campaign document, the organisation argues that while the reforms are presented as efforts to strengthen constitutional democracy, they contain “serious risks” for ordinary citizens.
BOCONGO raises particular concern over what it describes as gaps in the proposed structure of the court, especially the absence of a constitutionally guaranteed quorum for hearings.
“The Bill does not specify how many judges must sit to hear a case in the Constitutional Court,” the document states, warning that this could allow “a single judge” to decide major constitutional and human rights cases.
The organisation argues that such a framework could expose citizens to arbitrary rulings on sensitive matters such as freedom of expression, voting rights and property disputes.
“SERIOUS RISKS” TO HUMAN RIGHTS DECISIONS
BOCONGO further warns that allowing one judge to preside over constitutional matters could increase the risk of error, bias or inconsistency, with limited avenues for correction.
“Your human rights could be decided by one person instead of a panel,” the organisation cautioned, adding that such a system could weaken safeguards in politically and socially sensitive disputes.
CONCERNS OVER LEGAL STRUCTURE AND OVERSIGHT
The civic body also questions the legal foundation of the Constitutional Court Bill No. 19 of 2025, arguing that critical provisions should be entrenched in the Constitution rather than ordinary legislation.
It further notes that a separate Bill meant to address quorum issues was never tabled in Parliament, creating what it calls uncertainty over how the court would function in practice.
PRESIDENTIAL INFLUENCE UNDER SCRUTINY
BOCONGO also raises alarm over provisions it says give the President significant influence in appointing Constitutional Court judges and members of the Judicial Service Commission.
“The Bill gives the President significant influence over appointing Constitutional Court judges… weakening judicial independence,” the document states.
It warns that a politically influenced judiciary may be reluctant to rule against the state, even in cases involving alleged constitutional violations.
FINALITY OF RULINGS RAISES CONCERN
Another contested provision is the proposal that Constitutional Court decisions be final and not subject to appeal.
They criticise the proposed removal of the High Court’s jurisdiction in human rights matters, arguing that the wording could be overly broad and overwhelm the new court with routine disputes involving labour, land, children’s rights and privacy.
BOCONGO further questions the financial implications of establishing a new Constitutional Court and holding a national referendum, arguing that public funds could be better directed toward pressing social needs.
“Public money used here is money not available for healthcare, education, water, housing, or local services,” the statement notes.
“NO NEW PROTECTIONS”
Despite the scale of the proposed constitutional overhaul, the organisation argues that the reforms do not introduce any additional human rights protections.
“You are asked to approve a major constitutional change without gaining any new protections,” BOCONGO warned.