In the space of a single week in late March and early April 2026, four separate government communications highlighted a recurring and deepening pattern in Botswana’s public administration: the use of press releases, and in one striking case a verbal presidential announcement, to give effect to measures that appear to carry regulatory force, rather than following the formal statutory procedures laid down by law. While the intent in each case is commendable, the method raises serious questions about legal certainty and the rule of law. A press release cannot create binding obligations where legislation requires action through statutory instruments published in the Government Gazette. Neither, it follows, can a statement made at a press briefing.
The first instance followed the Botswana Energy Regulatory Authority’s adjustment of fuel prices, effective 28 March 2026. On 27 March, the Ministry of Trade and Entrepreneurship issued a press release asking retailers to apply a temporary fuel surcharge at the point of sale to protect consumers. No details were provided on how the surcharge should be calculated, its duration, or the precise legal basis for enforcement. The communication was issued outside the framework of the Trading Margins Regulations.
On 31 March 2026, Government Notice No. 307 of 2026 was published under the Road Transport (Permits) Act (Cap. 69:03), revising public transport passenger fares with effect from 1 April. The new fares attracted immediate public concern. In response, the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure issued a press release suspending implementation, directing operators to revert to the previous fare structure ‘until further notice’. While a corrigendum later appeared in the Gazette, the initial suspension was conveyed solely through the press statement – raising questions about whether the Minister’s intervention aligned with the statutory allocation of authority under the Act.
On 2 April 2026, the Department of Veterinary Services notified the public, via press release, of a Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in the Goodhope District, imposing detailed movement restrictions stated to take ‘immediate effect’. No accompanying order had been published in the Gazette under the Diseases of Animals Act (Cap. 37:01), which requires the Director to declare infected areas and prohibit movement ‘by order published in the Gazette’. A binding statutory instrument was only published days later. As with the transport fares, the legal instrument followed the public announcement – when the constitutional order of things requires precisely the reverse.
On 6 April 2026, President Duma Boko announced at a national briefing that the government had waived the requirement for motorists to renew vehicle licences and driver’s licences, citing failures in the renewal system. The Road Traffic Act and its subsidiary regulations are unambiguous: renewal is mandatory and failure to renew attracts daily penalties. Those provisions were not amended. No Statutory Instrument was gazetted. The obligation was suspended by a spoken statement – an instrument that carries no legislative authority whatsoever. This is perhaps the starkest example: a verbal announcement purporting to override an Act of Parliament.
These requirements are not mere administrative formalities. The Statutory Instruments Act (Cap. 02:11) is clear: every statutory instrument must be published in the Gazette and laid before the National Assembly. Botswana’s Constitution embeds the rule of law through its structure – Section 3 affirms fundamental rights including protection of the law, Section 10 guarantees access to an independent court, and Section 86 vests legislative power in Parliament, requiring that executive action remain within statutory bounds. Legal certainty requires that laws be clear, accessible and predictable. When obligations are created or suspended through press releases and verbal announcements, citizens cannot reliably know their legal position, and enforcement risks arbitrariness.
The practical consequences extend beyond individual cases. Unclear pricing rules, unresolved transport costs, and motorists unsure whether their expired discs are lawfully excused all create real exposure for citizens and businesses. Investors rely on stable, transparent legal processes when assessing risk. Repeated reliance on informal communications erodes confidence in the predictability of governance.
None of this suggests bad faith. The pressures of rapid response are real, and public communications serve an important role. Yet they cannot lawfully substitute for the instruments Parliament has prescribed. Where an Act or regulation requires a Gazette order, that instrument must be issued – promptly if necessary – with the press release used to supplement, not replace, it. Legal certainty is not an obstacle to effective governance; it is the foundation that makes governance legitimate and sustainable.*