The youth are throwing insults, not stones
Recent public addresses by the Minister of Presidential Affairs, Kabo Morwaeng revived fears that freedom of expression could be under threat in Botswana, with the risks of dropping the country’s position in international rating indices.
Twice, the minister accused the public of speaking ill of the person of the president. While there hasn’t been a proper survey to gauge the public’s take on the Minister’s outbursts, a cursory look in social media, reveals a growing but divided perception on the state of freedom of expression in the country.
On the first occasion, the Minister’s barrage was provoked by recorded utterances of the former president, Seretse Khama Ian Khama, now a political foe to his former party.
He accused the current president of undermining and taking Batswana for granted. The utterances were delivered in the Setswana language, ‘ oa lo tlwaela’, which in the vernacular, sounds very acerbic and carries a disrespectful tone.
The Minister was not amused.
His responding missive was inscribed in capitals under an official state- owned letterhead. And for effect, the language used was also Setswana, the national vernacular. The statement was, of course, eloquently read in the state broadcaster.
In the second and recent instance, some weeks later, the same Minister decided to elevate his concern. This time the attack was ignited by persisting and widespread criticism of the president and his government, mainly on social media.
The Minister stole a slot from the proceedings of Parliament and once again, admonished the nation over its tendency to ‘ insult’ the president of the country.
Members of Parliament and by extension, the nation, were forced to play audience to a tonguelashing monologue, the long shot of which was to protect the president from scrutiny, more like wrapping a naked emperor in a torn cloth.
Launching his attack from the slate of culture and botho, the Minister’s outrage continued after a controversial and explicit Rap song made it into the airwaves just recently.
The Minister, accompanied by a church leader, Bishop Metlha Beleme, and Director of Global Transformation & Networks Taolo Moshaga, sprung to Botswana Television ( BTV)’ s The Eye programme.
Reading from the same script, the trio minced no words in bashing the youth for their disrespect to the elderly with the Minister emphasising that freedom of speech is not absolute.
In their submission, there is a template in which people must raise their emotions and this must not offend the elderly.
It must be noted that in all the incidences that are referred to, the ‘ insults’ were nothing but demands for accountability, albeit in a raised and sharp voice meant to make an impact.
For instance, the latest protest from the youthful rap artist, going by the stage name, Ozi F Teddy is neither unprecedented nor unprovoked.
Since the ban of entertainment, there have been pockets of resistance, particularly from the youth, notably from other artistes: ATI, who was jailed for his outbursts, and Vee, who together with others organised an illegal gathering ( against the state of emergency regulations) in Old Naledi.
There have also been a couple of poems, with explicit flashes, on social media condemning the status quo of state of emergency and ban on entertainment.
With this in mind, it is dishonourable to suggest the youth are impatient and unreasonable in their demands and therefore must follow certain procedures. Their explosive expression is inevitable and thankfully, right now, it is only coming out through the tongue.
Instead of throwing stones in protest, they are hurling insults as a form of protest. Judging by the response from the Minister and the law enforcement, it appears insults are as hurting as stones.
Is it surprising that the Minister thinks everything is normal and he can simply rebuke bad behaviour and life continues? Nope.
Botswana’s statutes are littered with all kinds of laws that are aimed at stunting freedom of expression, despite the constitution explicitly protecting it in Section 12.
Just to mention a few, Botswana is one of the countries in the world that still has what is colloquially known as ‘ insult’ laws as well as the criminal defamation laws, notably in the Penal Code: Articles 91, 93, and 192,193 respectively.
The ‘ insult’ law supposedly protects ‘ the honour and dignity’ of national monuments from either being defaced or undermined by the public. The president falls under these monuments.
Unlike the defamation laws, in the Criminal Defamation and Insult Laws: a summary of free speech developments in the Czech Republic, it is stated that the truth cannot defend one against an insult charge, for instance, if being black is considered to be an insult, one would be found guilty for saying a black president is black.
A good example is in the story some years ago ( 2009) when one South African, Dorsey Dube was reportedly arrested and detained for two days after seeing President Khama’s portrait at the SA/ BW border and remarked that, he looks like a Bushman. She was charged for insulting the president.
Advanced democracies have done away with these laws because they offend their international commitment to fundamental rights, in particular, Freedom of Speech and Expression as espoused in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Botswana is a party to these treaties, including the recently revised African Union’s Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. For some reason, the country often enjoys some obscurity from the international glare, despite its flouting of these fundamental rights.
As much as there are limitations to absolute freedom, it is widely accepted that, at least for leaders, the door for criticism must be opened as widely as possible.
“The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance” ( Lingens v. Austria, Eur. Ct. H. R., 1986).
It appears in this part of the world, the situation is the opposite. Leaders are protected from scrutiny at all costs. The Leader of Opposition ( LOO) in Botswana Parliament, Dumelang Saleshando observed, in response to the Minister’s rebukes that the latter did not bother to put specifics on the table.
He just made blanket admonitions perhaps because the intent was just to throw a scare in the public square.
A few incidents aptly illustrate that the Minister’s reaction is not isolated or unprecedented. It is preceded by several cases of individuals arraigned before the courts of law for violating certain laws, one such being the Cyber Crime and Computer Related Offences Act.
The Police in April 2020 released a statement announcing the arrest of three men, accused of, among other things, publishing ‘ offensive statements against the government’ and ‘ degrading and maligning the leadership of the country.’
This had a chilling slide of sweat down the spine of freedom of expression activists, journalists, and the general public. Many were disappointed because they had thought things would be different from the Khama regime, which was notoriously averse to freedom of expression.
One example from the Khama era is that of a teacher who was dismissed from work for violating the Public Service Act, after publishing a letter to the editor in Mmegi, one of the mainstream newspapers, criticising the then president.
This particular case goes to show that despite accolades from international ratings, the country has had cases that inhibit freedom of expression for a long time.
In fact, there are records of presidential altercations with the press, dating as far back as the Ketumile Masire presidency. Masire reportedly had a scuffle with a journalist, Outsa Mokone after a report linking the president to the NDB corruption scandal.
Festus Mogae is also remembered for the advertising ban on the Guardian group, following the paper’s portrayal of him as the shrinking president.
The Minister of Presidential Affairs must be advised to desist from lashing out at the public for their exercise of freedom of expression. This has a bad reflection, not only on him but on the person he attempts to protect.
The person he is trying to protect is an extrovert who is rather too casual in his public addresses, which are often laced with contradictions.
This, naturally elicits strong negative reactions from the public, particularly, his detractors.
The recent unpalatable outbursts from the youth on social media and music, towards the president and leadership, in general, will need a sober response from the leadership. Such a sober reaction will involve identifying what really leads to these outbursts and how they could be remedied.
Shushing them off by threats will not bring sustainable solutions but fan the straying flames. The president needs criticism, however distasteful it might be, and he must absorb it with corresponding attention to the remedies of issues on the table; including the removal of laws that inhibit freedom of expression.