In his recently published memoirs, David Magang writes that during his time as a cabinet minister, he was “appalled” by the power civil servants wielded over ministers.
“If there was one country in which ministers were the quintessential figureheads, that country was Botswana.
Civil servants were the minister’s conscience. They invariably made all the decisions and presented them to the minister as a foregone conclusion. They hardly even provided a range stamp, and therefore validate the wishes of the bureaucrats under him. Ministers read speeches whose ramifications they barely understood and which were bent to somebody else’s will; for instance, when [former vice president Peter] Mmusi gave a speech, I could easily tell whose views among his senior officials it essentially reflected,” Magang says in “The Magic of Perseverance.”
In the same week that his book came out, Magang did an interview with The Voice during which he restated his dim views on senior civil servants. To the question of whether the civil service has the nation’s interests at heart, Magang began by implying the negative in his answer, then pointing the finger of blame at politicians.
“It is they who allow civil servants to literally ride roughshod over them. In the post-independence days, senior technocrats were, by and large, far better educated than their ministers. As a result, ministers held them in awe, literally bowing and scrapping before them. Civil servants prescribed policy directions for government without being in the least questioned by their respective ministers.
“This had the effect that ministers were figureheads who scarcely wielded the authority that was due to them. Unfortunately, even in present-day Botswana, where most ministers boast a chain of degrees around their necks, the scenario is pretty much the same,” Magang said in The Voice interview.
This is not the first time an ex-minister has publicly expressed sentiments similar to those.
In the dying days of the eighth parliament, the late North East MP Chapson Butale had been demoted to the backbench which allows occupants more freedom of speech than colleagues in the frontbench. On taking the floor during a debate, Butale lamented the power imbalance between ministers and senior civil servants, suggesting at one point that the latter can tell a minister that if he becomes too troublesome, they know just what strings to pull to have him returned to the backbench. Butale was holding himself up as an example of such victimisation.
It would appear though that not all ex-ministers had similar experience. In the 25 years that she was a minister, Dr. Gaositwe Chiepe has no recollection of ever being railroaded into rubberstamping decision by senior civil servants in the manner suggested by Magang.
“That’s his opinion,” Dr. Chiepe says of Magang’s assertions.
At a more fundamental level, she identifies trust as the most essential guiding principle in minister-senior civil servants relationship. The presence of such trust, she adds, makes for a healthy working relationship and vice versa.
Former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education, Keetla Masogo, also refutes Magang’s recollections of how people in the position he held for a long time interacted with ministers.
“I laughed out loud when I read Mr. Magang’s claims in the newspaper and I contest his assertions because what he wrote in his book is not true. Major government policies are articulated within ministries but afterwards are collectively discussed in cabinet by ministers. The cabinet meetings are chaired by the president,” Masogo says.
He adds that Magang, whom he says “specialised in conflict”, is confusing administrative functions of the civil service with the political policy-making process.
While he never worked under Magang, Masogo says that the latter always accused him of “controlling” former education minister, Kebatlamang Morake, a charge he deems false.
“I disagreed with Morake on several occasions but after that could not just go ahead and implement a decision without his approval. Morake had a policy advisory council that he chaired himself. The council would discuss issues and decisions would be implemented only after an agreement had been reached,” Masogo recalls of his time as PS at the Ministry of Education.
He alleges that Magang’s “major problem’ was that while he knew precious little about the civil service when he was appointed minister, he was eager to run the show before he learnt the ropes.
“He didn’t know the difference between duties of a public officer and those of a minister to such an extent that he wanted to be involved in the promotion of officers.
“I’m not privy to the details of his quarrel with [Olebile] Gaborone and [Joshua] Galeforolwe but I suspect it had something to do with them resisting his interference. You can’t have a minister who is part of the administration because by nature a politician is partisan while a civil servant stays above politics and implements decisions made by the minister,” Masogo says from his retirement home in Palapye.
Gaborone, who is currently South East North MP, fell out with Magang during his stint as chief executive officer of the Botswana Telecommunications Corporation. Galeforolwe, the current head of the Public Enterprises Evaluation and Privatisation Agency (PEEPA) was in similar position at Air Botswana when that run-in occurred. Magang, then Minister of Works, Transport and Communications – as it then was – fired both men.
Earlier this year, an incident in the National Assembly revealed how ministers and senior aides conduct important government business. Then assistant Labour and Home Affairs minister, Gaotlhaetse Matlhabaphiri, had to retract a statement he made to parliament about operations of the Bank of Baroda after it was discovered that some parts of the statement were false.
Outside parliament, then Palapye MP and former cabinet minister, Boyce Sebetela, followed with another revelation that it was practically impossible for Botswana’s ministers to know every little detail that goes into statements they make to parliament.
“Ministers have no reason to doubt information provided by officers. The best they can do, in cases where they have doubts, is probe officers for more answers when they get the information they are to present to parliament. Ministers have quite a lot to do: they are involved in planning, policy and legislation and it would be extremely difficult for them to know every detail they present to parliament,” said Sebetela whose last cabinet assignment was as Minister of Communications, Science and Technology.
He added that Botswana’s cabinet reshuffle system where ministers are being constantly rotated around different portfolios made it extremely difficult for them to familiarise themselves with precise details of the ministries they head and deprives them of knowledge power.
The view of Gaborone Central MP, Dumelang Saleshando, is that all too often senior officers ÔÇô like permanent secretaries ÔÇô who are assigned to gather information on parliamentary questions, pass that task on to junior officers who do a less-than-satisfactory job.
In its latest report, the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation, Government Assurances and Motions passed by the National Assembly, which Saleshando chaired until last November, raises concerns about ministers presenting false information to parliament.
What is most interesting with regard to parliament being fed wrong information is that, in some instances, such information can be admitted as evidence in court. The National Assembly’s Hansard, which is the official record of what was discussed in parliament, is printed by the Government Printer. In terms of Section 22 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, “any copy of the journals printed or purporting to be printed by the Government Printer shall be admitted as prima facie evidence of such journals in all courts and places”.
