Category: Sunday Standard

In 2024, Batswana made the biggest transformation in our country’s 60 year history: removing the BDP and choosing hope and change promised by the UDC. This political change coincided with another structural change which Batswana had been warned about for 30 years but never quite adequately prepared for: a collapse in diamond markets which threw Botswana’s economic status into the abyss. Whilst Batswana were ready to change politically they so far haven’t shown a propensity to change how we run our country economically but it finally feels like we don’t have a choice. It is time for Botswana to change its business model and this 2026 budget provides the perfect opportunity to steer this Titanic away from the economic iceberg threatening our well-being.

Understanding the Problem

Any financial advisor will tell you that budgeting is a simple function of Asset and Liabilities Matching (ALM). This is a fancy phrase used in financial analysis and management which simply means you need to ensure that the money you make is sufficient to take care of the commitments that you have; not just making sure you have enough but also making sure your revenues come at the same time as when your commitments are due. This therefore requires understanding the certainty of when your money is coming and how much of it is coming in order to make decisions on what to commit to. (I had been struggling to capture my thoughts properly for the past few years to explain our issues to the average Motswana until I saw a Linkedin post by Kgomotso Beleme and she captured it perfectly. Credit to her). If you take a household (and the principles are the same), the family has to determine its revenues in order to plan its commitments. Lets take an example of a permanent and pensionable government employee, say a nurse or a teacher who is married to an entrepreneur. The nurse or teacher knows exactly how much they earn and when that salary will come in. The entrepreneur on the other hand does not. Their income amounts and timings are more volatile and less certain. This therefore would mean the family should ordinarily plan using the certain salary for things like rent/mortgage, car payments, school fees, food etc. The entrepreneurs’ income would be taken to savings for a period and then utilized for ‘projects’ as the savings get bigger and bigger. If the family commits too much of the entrepreneur’s expected future earnings to things such as the mortgage payments and school fees and anything goes wrong, the family can find itself having to move out of its repossessed home or be forced to move children to government schools.

Now let’s relate this basic principle to what has happened in Botswana in the past. Most countries fund their budget from taxes, investment returns and borrowing. In the case of Botswana, historically the money we make from our investment in diamonds provided between 30-40% with the balance of our budget coming from tax collections from BURS and our quarterly payments from SACU. In taking the household example, the taxes from BURS and payments from SACU ordinarily should have been treated as the government worker salary with our revenues from our diamond investments being treated as volatile and uncertain. Fortunately for Botswana, unlike most commodity markets, diamonds have been peculiar and not been as volatile and we therefore started to (complacently) view the returns from there like a nurse’s salary. We knew that 10 times a year, De Beers would host diamond sights and on average $200 million dollars would hit the coffers. We budgeted with it, we built our savings and we built our whole way of life. We talked about diversifying, we were warned for decades but we never believed it. In 2008, the financial crisis warned us. We didn’t listen. We ate on savings and pretended everything was normal. Covid sent another warning. Again we didn’t listen. We continued to think it is business as usual (despite Dr Matsheka famously declaring we can’t be business as usual in his 2021 Budget Speech). Nothing changed. We assumed the certainty of diamond revenues we enjoyed for 40 years would continue. It didn’t. And our fiscal and economic state crashed.

So what has to happen?

We all have to agree we cannot carry on with the business-as-usual mentality. Going back to Asset and Liability Matching; we basically have to do a much better job in planning for our revenues. We can’t afford to keep treating diamond revenues as certain. We have to plan for worst case scenario where diamond revenues are between BWP8-10 billion rather than between BWP20-30 billion. Since 2020, most years we pretended diamond revenues would be certain (and were right maybe at best twice out of 6 years) and chose to try to ‘stimulate’ the economy by increased development spending under programs such as the Economic Recovery and Transformation Plan (ERTP) and the Development Manager (DM) models and funded the short fall in budgets by eating away 30 years worth of foreign reserves savings in a couple of years. After depleting the reserves, our next step has been trying to plug these funding deficits with debt and loans. We are therefore committing future generations of Batswana to debts simply because we refuse to adjust our lifestyles.

I am hoping that in the budget of 2026/2027 with the theme ‘New Era of Economic Transformation and Fiscal Prudence’ we will finally see Botswana take the asset and liability approach and correctly plan. In practical terms this implies scaling back the budget expenditures from being in the BWP80 to 90 billions back to mid BWP60 billions to acknowledge your lack of certainty on diamond revenues. As a result you have to defer a lot of development spending i.e. we may have to hold off on new roads, pipelines, schools, hospitals where a clear business case does not exist or where we aren’t able to structure them in a feasible public private partnership. With a current salary bill of BWP35 billion being the largest component of our commitments, we have to freeze salaries for the foreseeable future and may have to have conversations on how to reduce this number significantly. Whilst this is unpopular, we have to acknowledge we are not in 1990-2020 Botswana. We have reached an inflection point and pretending otherwise will simply crash the economy and saddle our future generations with needless debt.

One of the big exercises in ALM is figuring which liabilities are essential and which ones are nice to haves. For example, I believe we can all agree that our health care and education are some of the most precious things to Botswana. They form part of our values and pride but we also have to acknowledge they have deteriorated exponentially in the last 15-20 years. However, we then need to examine other welfare practices we have entrenched and aspire for. Can we continue to spend billions on tertiary education taking our students to some of the universities we are taking them to (especially the questionable ones)? Can we continue and expand bo Ipelegeng? Should we be having means testing for utilization of government schools and hospitals and have anyone on medical aid paying a more cost reflective fee? Or paying a cost reflective fee for education? Can we really increase allowances and build more roads and schools? Can we afford fancy learner management systems or should we be going back to basics and investing on maintaining schools and clinics and ensuring standards are back to pre 2005 times?

I hope to see the upcoming budget reflect real and committed prudence. Budgeting with money we can properly plan for. Cutting back on fancy spending and going back to basics of good health care and education. Reducing the wasteful spending and of course cutting down on procurement wastage and leakages. Planning for the worst and praying diamond revenues come back and then ploughing whatever revenues we get from diamonds back into savings and paying down debts. Exercising restraint for a few years in order to land this plane safely. The Honorable Minister Gaolathe needs to change course of this country and make us all see this country has fundamentally changed. It is unfortunate that all the mistakes of the last 20 years are needing to be corrected by him and most would require going against the UDC manifesto but the reality is there is no opportunity for political expediency. The current governments legacy might not be economic transformation but rather economic stabilization after 20 years of reckless drivers at the wheel. Pretending otherwise is futile for their legacy and the future of this country.

A simmering legal dispute between veteran labour activist Johnson Motshwarakgole and senior public official Andrew D’bois Motsamai escalated this week after Motshwarakgole rejected demands to retract remarks described by Motsamai’s lawyers as ‘injurious, malicious and defamatory.’

In a response, Motshwarakgole’s attorneys, Charles Colombia Consultancy, dismissed the demand issued by Otto Itumeleng Law Chambers as ‘misconceived, legally untenable, and without merit,’ effectively calling what they characterised as an attempt to intimidate their client into silence.

The dispute arises from an urgent court application in which Motshwarakgole cited Motsamai as the ninth respondent while opposing his appointment to a senior position as secretary of the Public Service Bargaining Council. In the founding affidavit, Motshwarakgole alleged that there were ‘unresolved and serious allegations of financial impropriety arising from [Motsamai’s] tenure at Botswana Public Employees Union.’ Motsamai’s legal team argues that these remarks tarnish his integrity and credibility.

Motsamai’s lawyers further objected to statements made by Motshwarakgole during a press conference held on 2 February 2026, where he publicly questioned Motsamai’s integrity. They demanded that the statements be expunged and retracted by 16:00 on the same day the demand letter was served.

However, Motshwarakgole’s attorneys rejected both the substance and the urgency of the demand.

‘We note, at the outset, that the timeline imposed was wholly unreasonable,’ the response letter states adding that Motsamai had already been aware of the affidavit’s contents since 1 February.

‘At the outset, our Client denies that any of the statements complained of are defamatory, unlawful, malicious, or actuated by any intention to injure your Client’s reputation,’ the letter continues.

The response argues that the statements were made within the context of active judicial proceedings and are therefore protected by legal privilege. ‘Our Client is advised that statements made in the course of court proceedings are privileged, provided that they are relevant to the issues before the Court, which is plainly the case herein,’ the attorneys wrote.

They further dismissed the demand to expunge or retract the affidavit, stating it was ‘legally untenable.’

On the press conference remarks, Motshwarakgole’s lawyers said their client merely raised concerns already in the public domain and acted ‘in good faith, in the public interest, and without making any false factual assertions.’

The letter also emphasised Motsamai’s status as a public figure. ‘Your Client is a public figure occupying a senior public office,’ the attorneys wrote adding that ‘fair comment on matters of public interest, including issues of governance, integrity, and accountability, is lawful and constitutionally protected.’

Motsamai’s legal team, however, maintains that the claims are misleading. They argue that he voluntarily relinquished the presidency of BOPEU in 2017 and that police investigations concluded in August 2022 without him being a subject of investigation. They insist he is ‘a fit and proper person who has been successfully vetted for the current management position in the Public Service.’

Despite this, Motshwarakgole has refused to retreat.

‘In the circumstances, our Client is not amenable to the demands set out. and accordingly declines to retract the statements complained of,’ the response states while reserving the right to defend the matter in court.

Preparation is the epitaphs of good communications.

Nobody is ever a good communicator by chance. They have to work at it – putting into it immense and meticulous work and planning.

Behind every good communicator are many hours of preparation, preparation and preparation.

Cabinet ministers should not be struggling to sell the idea of a Constitutional Court to the nation.

There are many genuine reasons why the country needs a Constitutional court..

Invoking these reasons with confidence and clarity will make our ministers appear much more believable.

For a majority of Batswana, a Constitutional Court is a low hanging fruit that promises to deliver them from the numerous grave deprivations bequeathed this nation by several layers of tribal inequalities.

Take for example the Bobonong / Bobirwa constituency as a case study.

Bobonong / Bobirwa has Taolo Lucas as its Member of Parliament.

Taolo Lucas is not your average politician. He is deputy leader of Botswana Congress Party. BCP is the official opposition.

And he has an expansive presence inside the BCP.

As things stand, the BCP has already made its position known – not just on the Constitutional Court but on the imminent Referendum too.

Lucas is one of BCP’s foremost debaters. He is fearless.

He is a hard hitter.

Like their Member of Parliament, the people of Bobonong / Bobirwa constituency strongly feel that they should have their own paramount Kgosi.

This demand is very fundamental to their identity as a people. This demand cuts across political party allegiances in that area. And this demand generally unites the people.

Naturally these people see themselves as victims.

They say they do not want to have Ian Khama as their Kgosi.

They want to have their own Kgosi who shall be Ian Khama’s equal, sitting side by side with him in the House of Chiefs.

Who is best placed to resolve this complex matter? The answer is simple; the Constitutional Court.

And we are not done yet.

The people in Bobonong /Bobirwa say they want to have a tribal territory of their own.

At the moment their tribal territory is part of Gammangwato, with a headquarters in Serowe.

They add that they want to have their own Land Board that is not subservient to the one in Serowe.

They say they do not have any relationship with Bangwato other than a feudalist master/servant arrangement which cannot be allowed to go on unchallenged in this era.

Cabinet ministers going around the country to justify the Concourt could use the situation in Bobonong / Bobirwa as a template – and deploy it in their meetings around the country. Whether you go to Maun, Okavango, Letlhakane, Tonota, Tutume and many other place, similar situations exist

Cabinet ministers need to find a simple but coherent message on why it is necessary to establish a Constitutional Court ahead of the Constitutional Review process.

A person listening to a minister in Gantsi should receive the same message like another person listening to another minister in Tonota.

At the moment it seems to me like there is no aligned strategy among ministers.

Every minister seems to rely on their own strengths of public speaking and delivery.

It is exactly because they are not talking from a uniform script, that they are now talking in turns.

At another extreme, those against the Constitutional Court have seized on the state of public health to say government should fix public health before talking of introducing a Constitutional Court.

Too often we see ministers falling into the trap, including by saying the Constitutional Court will fix public health.

The onus is now on technical advisors to come up with a plan to rescue the narrative.

One way to do so would be for our ministers to acknowledge upfront that indeed there are problems besieging our public health for example.

And then emphasise that action is being taken. This is a much better strategy than saying the Constitutional Court will address health issues ass some ministers keep saying.

A Constitutional Court does not address bureaucratic bottlenecks like delivering textbooks to schools or delivering medicines to hospitals.

Administrative incompetence is not going to disappear when the Constitutional Court is introduced.

Rather, the Court serves to affirm, interpret and protect the rights.

The next logical step for our ministers would then be to emphasise that it is incorrect to suggest that the intention to establish a Court means that other critical matters such as the health situation, Foot and Mouth Disease, Gender Based Violence, Crime, Corruption, poor infrastructure are not being given the attention they deserve.

Government is a huge animal with diverse capabilities. So, these matters and more are being given urgent attention through various arms of Government.

In strategic communications, this is called ‘deflection.’

Deflection will help ministers regain control of the Constitutional Court conversation by also emphasising that other important enabling tasks also need to be done simultaneously and in parallel. One such is the current engagements on the establishment of the Court pending a wholesale review of the constitution.

The next step would be to focus on why it is so important to have Constitutional Court.

A Constitutional Court deals with interpreting rights, upholding rights and protecting applicants against violations of their constitutional rights. As Batswana plan a wholesome review of the Constitution, a Constitutional Court will help in this way.

There is no question that a Constitutional Court will expeditiously resolve issues pertaining to constitutional rights much faster than a High Court currently does.

Issues so resolved would then simply be noted and rightly put in the final Constitution without having to go all over them during the Review process.

For example, if there had been a Constitutional Court during the Dow citizenship case, it would most likely have taken a shorter time to resolve as opposed to the two or so years it took, thus saving time and money.

From the top of my mind, there are a number of issues that require the immediate intervention of the Constitutional Court. Civil imprisonment on account of debt owing is one such. This affects too many of our people.

In fact, this is so widespread that I still remember instances where a few of today’s ministers were imprisoned when we were still together in the trenches and I had to rescue a few of them. Today they are above it and out of reach of such. But they should not forget those of us who are still within reach of the same fate.

Another thing, ministers have no reason to rush to the issue of death penalty in their meetings.

Too often in their meetings, it the ministers who raise this issue even begore the public.

In my view that is a mistake.

Botswana Housing Corporation has raised P285 million through a private placement under its medium-term note programme, adding fresh funding as the state-owned developer manages maturing debt and an expanding construction pipeline.

The transaction, completed in December 2025, consisted of two unsecured tranches. A P100 million note matures in 2032 and carries a fixed coupon of 15 percent, while a P185 million tranche due in 2030 offers a 14.5 percent coupon. Following the placement, total outstanding notes increased to P685 million from P400 million previously.

The fundraising coincided with pressure on the balance sheet. A listed bond matured in December 2025 and 76 percent of BHC’s P529.3 million borrowings were classified as current liabilities, tightening liquidity. Although trade receivables improved on stronger collections, cash and cash equivalents declined 44 percent to P405.5 million in the six months to September 2025, compared with the March 2024 year-end.

Proceeds from the placement are supporting refinancing requirements alongside ongoing project delivery. BHC is advancing developments in Phakalane, Gerald Estates in Francistown, Kazungula, Lobatse and Jwaneng, including contract housing for police and prison officers under the Employee Housing Initiative. A central pillar of the strategy is the Bonno National Housing Programme, which targets affordable units for low- and middle-income earners, with homes under construction in Gaborone Block 7 forming part of the national rollout.

Construction momentum has lifted inventories to more than P828 million as units approach completion. Financial performance has improved, with BHC returning to profitability in the first half of the 2025/26 financial year. Profit after tax rose to P32.3 million for the six months to 30 September 2025 from P10.8 million earlier.

Botswana’s proposed P378 billion development spending plan under the draft National Development Plan 12 (NDP12) is ‘a fantasy’ that cannot be implemented or financed. This is according to the latest Fourth Quarter Economic Review by economic consultancy Econsult.

In a hard-hitting assessment of the country’s fiscal outlook, Econsult says the development budget has become one of the most serious weaknesses in Botswana’s public finances citing years of inefficiency, poor project design and weak implementation. ‘The development budget is a particular problem, in part because past development spending has been incredibly inefficient and wasteful,’ Econsult says.

According to the firm, ‘Projects have been badly designed and implemented, but also there have been too many low-return, low-impact projects adopted that cannot possibly generate economic gains.’ The firm argues that instead of stimulating growth, many development projects have ‘acted as a drag on growth rather than boosting growth,’ largely because there has been no effective screening or appraisal system to prioritise high-impact projects within realistic budget limits.

This problem, Econsult says, is starkly illustrated by the draft NDP12 Public Investment Plan (PIP), which proposes spending P378 billion over five years from 2025/26 to 2029/30.

‘The proposed PIP of P378 billion over the five years is a fantasy,’ the review states.

For the 2026/27 financial year alone, NDP12 proposes a development budget of P54.24 billion, a figure Econsult describes as ‘completely unrealistic’.

‘This level of proposed spending could not possibly be implemented or financed,’ the firm says, adding that it hopes the figure ‘does not appear in the final 2026/27 budget when it is presented on February 9th.’

Econsult estimates that, under current conditions, a sustainable development budget for 2026/27 should not exceed P17 billion unless government undertakes drastic cuts to recurrent expenditure, including workforce reductions.

The review also pushes back against political calls for a higher share of the national budget to be allocated to development spending.

‘Claims by many politicians and commentators that the overall budget should devote a higher proportion of spending to development projects is ill-informed and does not stand up to logical scrutiny,’ Econsult says.

The firm notes that every development project creates permanent recurrent costs such as maintenance, staffing and operational expenses, meaning that over time, recurrent spending inevitably rises while the relative share of development spending must fall.

‘The challenge is to refocus the development budget on high-return projects by proper project appraisal and prioritisation,’ Econsult argues. ‘But this essentially means that for budget sustainability and boosting economic growth, the development spending budget must become both smaller and much more effective.’

On public debt, Econsult warns that Botswana’s problem is not the current level of debt but its rapid upward trajectory.

‘Botswana’s public debt is currently estimated at 32% of GDP,’ the firm notes, below the statutory limit of 40%. ‘However, it is not the level of debt that is the issue for Botswana but its trajectory; a sustainable debt can easily become an unsustainable debt if new borrowing is excessive.’

Public debt has risen sharply from 22.7% of GDP in March 2024, largely because government savings have been exhausted after years of financing deficits through drawdowns rather than borrowing.

Econsult cautions that even a single large deficit – around 9% of GDP – could push Botswana beyond its legal debt ceiling.

Raising the debt limit would not solve the underlying problem, the firm warns. ‘If the budget has an unsustainable deficit that is not being addressed, raising the debt limit just means that this behaviour can continue for longer.’

The review also flags growing government payment arrears as ‘hidden debt’ citing a mid-January statement by the Minister of Transport that government owes P15 billion to roads contractors.

‘If correct, this would indicate an even higher level of arrears across government as a whole,’ Econsult says. It called for arrears to be properly quantified and published alongside official public debt figures.

The United Kingdom has warned that it may impose fresh import restrictions on Botswana beef following the confirmation of a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the country’s North East District, raising concerns over one of Botswana’s key agricultural exports.

In official guidance issued on 30 January 2026 and updated on 5 February, the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said consignments of fresh bovine meat and untreated animal by-products from Botswana should be held pending further assessment of the disease situation.

The warning follows Botswana’s notification to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) of an FMD outbreak detected in a herd of cattle in Disease Control Zone 6B. This zone is already barred from exporting fresh bovine meat to Great Britain due to a previous FMD outbreak in 2022. However, other parts of Botswana, designated Zones BW-1 to BW-5, remain approved exporters under current UK regulations.

Defra noted that while imports from Zone 6B are already prohibited, the latest outbreak has prompted a wider risk assessment. ‘Due to a recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Botswana, consignments from Botswana of fresh bovine meat and animal by-products that have not undergone a form of risk-mitigating treatment should be held,’ the UK guidance states.

The UK authority added that Botswana’s veterinary authorities have suspended all exports as a precaution while epidemiological investigations and animal movement tracing are carried out. Defra said it is ‘currently assessing the situation’ and could implement further import restrictions through amendments to its list of approved exporting regions ‘if deemed necessary.’

‘A separate OVS note will be issued if further restrictions are implemented,’ Defra said, signalling that a broader ban on Botswana beef exports to the UK remains a possibility.

the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture has confirmed the outbreak and announced stringent containment measures. In a press release dated 2 February 2026, the ministry said laboratory investigations had confirmed FMD at Jackalas No. 1 village crush in the North East District, within Disease Control Zone 6B.

The ministry also reported suspected cases at Moroka and Kgari village crushes in the neighbouring Disease Control Zone 3C, with investigations still ongoing. To curb the spread of the disease, vaccination campaigns are set to begin on 3 February in Zones 6B and 3C.

‘Additional prevention measures include prohibition of transportation, movement or slaughter of cloven-hoofed animals, including for personal consumption or social events, countrywide except in zones 1 (Chobe) and 2 (Ngamiland),’ the ministry said.

Acting Director of Veterinary Services Dr Kobedi Sedale urged farmers and the public to cooperate fully with disease surveillance teams and to comply strictly with all control measures. He also called on livestock owners to promptly report any signs of illness to veterinary officials or the police.

Botswana’s beef industry is a critical source of export earnings and rural livelihoods, with the UK among its premium markets. Any suspension or tightening of access could have significant economic implications, particularly for farmers already grappling with recurring animal disease outbreaks.

Bank of Botswana has placed the commemorative P50 banknote into circulation, marking a key milestone in the central bank’s Golden Jubilee celebrations .

The limited-edition note was officially released on Friday, 6 February 2026, following its launch last September by President Advocate Duma Gideon Boko during the Bank’s 50th anniversary events. It is legal tender and circulates alongside the existing P50 banknote that carries the portrait of Botswana’s first President, Sir Seretse Khama. Unlike the standard P50, the commemorative note will not be reprinted and will be withdrawn over time through natural attrition.

According to the Bank of Botswana, the new note is designed to reflect Botswana’s heritage and national achievements, while maintaining the tourism theme associated with the current P50. The face of the banknote features the redeveloped Bank of Botswana headquarters, the PulaThebe building, together with the Motswedi diamond, the second-largest diamond ever discovered, recovered from Lucara’s Karowe Diamond Mine. The imagery highlights the central bank’s stewardship of the financial system and the continued importance of minerals to the economy.

On the reverse, the banknote celebrates sporting excellence, depicting Botswana’s 2024 Olympians Letsile Tebogo, Bayapo Ndori, Busang Collen Kebinatshipi and Anthony Pesela, symbols of national pride and achievement.

The commemorative P50 retains the core security features of the existing banknote, with enhancements to strengthen protection against counterfeiting. These include an animated colour-shifting thread replacing the traditional holographic strip, while familiar elements such as braille dots for the visually impaired remain intact.

Distribution has been carried out through commercial banks nationwide, ensuring public access to the new note .

On Tuesday 22nd April, President Advocate Duma Boko launched the Bonno Target 3000 Housing Project at Kgale View, a flagship initiative led by the Ministry of Water and Human Settlement through the Botswana Housing Corporation (BHC). Boko hailed the Target 3000 project as a major step towards the national goal of delivering 100,000 homes.

‘Botswana is going to look spectacularly different. We dare not fail. This is the beginning of an ambitious project of wealth transfer, at the end of which 100 000 Batswana shall have titles to real property,’ he said.

Present at the launch was Reagon Craig – Chairman of Ongos Valley, a Namibian property development company whose portfolio includes a large-scale, sustainable housing project that required delivery of 4,500 houses over the 2019 – 2023 period. However, investigations into Ongos Valley’s operations in Namibia revealed that the company had only constructed 371 housing units between 2019 – 2024, implying a 62 houses/year rate on average.

Five days earlier, Ongos Valley had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with BHC to develop 3,005 affordable housing units over four years (2025-2028). This translated to 751 houses/year, 12 times (or 1,111 percent) increase over the company’s performance in Namibia. While they acknowledged Ongos Valley’s record of delivering 371 homes in Namibia, due diligence consultants Minchin and Kelly and transactional advisors Grant Thorton warned that the pace and scale did not match the capacity required to meet BHC’s expectations of 3,005 houses in four years. Alarm bells were ringing, but the Ministry was tone deaf.

Behind the photo -op smiles, BHC executives hung their heads in shame. They had been bullied into flouting the standard procurement procedure of issuing an Expression of Interest (EOI), evaluating prospective developers and awarding the contract to the most competitive bidder. The BHC propaganda machinery was coerced into toasting the Presidential launch of the Kgale project without any housing plans, enforceable contracts or a due diligence report.

The threat of summary dismissal was real and repeatedly pronounced. In July, the wrath of the powers that be fell upon Permanent Secretary Bonolo Khumotaka after she dared question the Ongos Valley contract. Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Nkaelang Matenge was also given his marching orders in October. The body count shot up on Wednesday 28 February 2026, when acting Deputy CEO Steven Ofetotse and Property Development Manager Urban Ferguson were summarily dismissed for allegedly sabotaging the Kgale development project. BHC insiders told Sunday Standard that Water and Human Settlements Minister Onneetse Ramogapi instructed the BHC board to fire the two executives for sabotaging the Ongos Valley project; failing which the board would be dissolved by February 1st.

RED FLAGS

In July 2025, law firm Minchin and Kelly and transactional advisors Grant Thorton bluntly told BHC to ‘carefully reconsider its contract with Ongos Valley to safeguard public resources and ensure that any commitment made was founded on a solid and well-understood risk profile.’

The consultants highlighted significant challenges encountered during the due diligence process, among them Ongos Valley’s reluctance to provide requested information and disclose necessary documentation. Even Ramogapi alluded to that in his report to Boko, when he revealed that the Namibian entity had ‘expressed discomfort that the due diligence exercise had been extended to it.’ This was necessitated by the fact that Ongos Valley Botswana was just a shelf company, established in 2023 with no operating experience.

According to the consultants, Ongos Valley’s dilly – dallying hampered confirmation of its financial soundness, technical operational capacity and ethical standing.

Said the consultants: ‘Significant uncertainties remain regarding the private partner’s willingness to contract on terms fair to BHC, ability to meet contractual obligations, secure requisite financing, and manage the project effectively. This increases the risk of unforeseen challenges, including potential project delays, cost overruns, or compliance issues.’

In light of these unresolved risks, the consultants recommended that the transaction should be reconsidered as it presented an unacceptably high level of uncertainty.

THE UGLY TRUTH

Minchin and Kelly identified several risk factors and revealed Ongos Valley’s dismal failure in financial, reputational, operational, technical and legal due diligence. According to the consultants, Ongos Valley failed to disclose key financial information such as latest management accounts, debtors and creditors ageing analysis, as well as tax compliance reports. Further, the company’s financials for 2023 – 2024 were not audited.

It was also found that Ongos Valley had not carried out any internal audits between 2021 – 2024, which limited visibility into its control environment, increasing the risk of undetected errors and weak governance. The transaction advisors observed that Ongos Valley did not report any revenue between 2021 – 2022, despite incurring operating expenses. This pointed to minimal commercial activity, which made it difficult for the consultants to reliably assess the company’s operational capacity, revenue-generating potential, and long-term sustainability.

Ongos Valley had reported losses across all the four years under the due diligence review. Strangely, the company donated N$ 2.1 million in 2023, recorded as operating expenses. The N$2.1million accounted for 19percent of Ongos Valley’s total operating expenses in 2023. The consultants questioned the allocation of substantial funds to non-operational items such as donations after prolonged losses; as it raised concerns about the company’s financial acumen and prioritization of operational sustainability.

The company had loans payable to its shareholders, which reflected limited confidence by shareholders in its long-term viability. By retaining creditor status, shareholders secured repayment priority in case of liquidation, suggesting reluctance to fully absorb business risk.

‘In all the four years under review, total liabilities exceeded total assets, resulting in a negative net asset position. A persistent negative net asset position indicates that the company is technically insolvent, raising concerns about its long-term financial sustainability, its ability to meet obligations, and its capacity to raise additional funding,’ read the due diligence report.

Ongos Valley’s accounts receivables included a substantial VAT component across all four years under review. This raised concerns about the size of projects the company had undertaken, as low revenue generation potentially reflects small-scale or delayed projects. The consistently high VAT receivable also reflected a higher input VAT over output VAT, implying that the company’s costs regularly surpassed its revenue.

According to the consultants, Ongos Valley reported substantial trade payables across all four years under review, indicating a consistent accumulation of unpaid supplier balances.

‘Persistent non-payment of suppliers may strain relationships and result in disrupted supply chains. This could delay project execution, increase costs, and ultimately impact the company’s ability to deliver on contractual obligations,’ warned the consultants.

The company’s debt made up more than 100 percent of its capital structure; while its liabilities exceeded its total assets. This posed solvency risks, exerted pressure on cashflows and reduced financial flexibility. Ongos Valley’s asset base was heavily concentrated on inventory, such that its liquidity and solvency were heavily tied to inventory realization. Should there be project delays or failure to sell, Ongos Valley would face working capital strain and difficulty meeting short-term obligations.

THE HOUSE OF CARDS COMES TUMBLING DOWN

In December 2025, barely six months after President Boko launched the ‘new era for Botswana’s housing landscape,’ the much-touted partnership between BHC and Ongos Valley collapsed. Then acting CEO Pascaline Sefawe confirmed that the catalytic housing development project hit a snag after negotiations with Ongos Valley collapsed.

‘It was very unfortunate that the project was launched, but negotiations with the partner did not go well. We had to terminate discussions,’ she said.

Internally, BHC employees breathed a collective sigh of relief. They were heavily opposed to the allocation of serviced prime land in Kgale to a dubious foreign company, that would sell it, generate profits and repatriate them outside Botswana.

‘The 3,000 housing units in Kgale were already planned for by BHC. So, there was no need to hand over the project to Ongos Valley on a silver platter,’ they said.

Silently, BHC technocrats scoffed at the Boko administration’s target of 100, 000 housing units in two years. Since inception in 1971, BHC has built just over 27, 000 housing units country wide, and they still have unsold inventory. Further, flooding the market with 100, 000 housing units would distort the property market and greatly reduce prices.

Dozens of patients left permanently injured after spinal cord stimulators were implanted to treat chronic back pain say government continues to ignore their pleas to have the devices removed, leaving them trapped in pain, disability and prolonged legal limbo.

The affected patients are victims of neurosurgeon Dr. Thabo Rowland, who inserted the spinal cord stimulators during procedures carried out after referrals from the public health system. Dr. Rowland has since been cited in multiple lawsuits alongside the government and health authorities, with patients accusing him of negligence and of implanting devices that were allegedly not properly authorized for use in Botswana.

Instead of relief, patients say the stimulators triggered devastating and irreversible complications. These include severe mobility problems, loss of bladder control, neurological impairment, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction and, in some cases, strokes. Several patients have since been forced into early medical retirement, losing their livelihoods and independence.

Correspondence seen by this publication shows that some victims have written directly to senior government offices in desperation after failing to secure help from the Ministry of Health. In their letters, they describe how the devices inserted by Dr Rowland years ago continue to cause daily suffering, while local specialists either decline or delay removing them.

Although the Ministry of Health has stated in writing that neurosurgeons exist locally who are capable of assessing and managing the removal of spinal cord stimulators, patients say this assurance has not translated into real action. They complain of endless referrals, repeated assessments and instructions to ‘wait’, while their conditions steadily worsen.

‘We were referred by government doctors to the doctor who implanted these devices,’ said one affected patient. ‘Now the same system says help is available, but nothing is being done.’

Court records from an ongoing High Court case question whether the Ministry of Health conducted proper due diligence before referring patients to Dr. Rowland and before allowing the importation and use of the spinal cord stimulators he implanted. The lawsuits further allege that at least one of the devices inserted by Dr. Rowland was not registered with the national medicines regulator, meaning its safety, quality and effectiveness were unknown at the time of implantation.

According to the court documents, patients were not given meaningful alternatives or second opinions before undergoing surgery by Dr. Rowland, and many only later discovered that the devices implanted in their bodies were potentially unlawful. Some victims reportedly underwent as many as seven procedures funded by government, yet emerged significantly worse off than before the interventions.

Dr. Rowland is cited as a defendant in the lawsuits, accused of failing to exercise due care and professional diligence when inserting the spinal cord stimulators. Government, meanwhile, is accused of failing to protect patients by referring them to the doctor without ensuring that the devices he used were lawful, safe and properly regulated.

For a brief period, hope emerged when authorities explored sending patients abroad for specialist treatment. A small number were taken to India, where some stimulators were removed. However, many others were left behind. Subsequent correspondence from senior government offices indicated that further overseas treatment would not be funded, with patients advised instead to pursue pain management and counselling.

Victims argue that such advice ignores the root cause of their suffering. ‘Pain management cannot fix a device that was implanted and that continues to damage our bodies,’ said another patient. ‘We need these stimulators removed.’

Patients say delays in both court proceedings and medical intervention are compounding their misery.

‘We are fighting the doctor who implanted these devices, the government that referred us to him, and a system that now refuses to undo the damage,’ said one victim. ‘All we are asking for is to have these stimulators removed.’

A company linked to late businessman Derik Brink and former Minister of Justice Ronald Shamukuni were locked in a legal dispute over hunting rights in the lucrative Okavango Delta, with questions of corporate identity, legal standing and competing court orders dominating the battle.

The dispute centred on hunting activities in the NG13 concession area and pitted Old Man’s Pan Safaris against DK Superior, a firm associated with Shamukuni. The matter drew in the Tcheku Community Development Trust and the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP).

Leon Kachelhoffer, managing director and shareholder of Old Man’s Pan Safaris, has challenged the legality of proceedings initiated by DK Superior Proprietary Limited, arguing that the entity cited in court papers does not legally exist in Botswana.

In an affidavit, Kachelhoffer said a search conducted with the Companies and Intellectual Property Authority (CIPA) revealed no registered company under the name DK Superior Proprietary Limited. Kachelhoffer further argued that Old Man’s Pan had already secured an order on appeal interdicting hunting activities in the NG13 area. He said the Court of Appeal ruling, delivered on 15 August 2025, directed that the dispute between Old Man’s Pan and the Tcheku Trust be resolved through arbitration.

He said he later learnt, through another court order, that DK Superior had been authorised to hunt in NG13 after entering into an agreement with the trust. According to Kachelhoffer, the order was obtained without notice to parties directly affected, including Old Man’s Pan Safaris.

‘The First Respondent clearly has no locus standi to institute proceedings for the orders it did. There is no company registered in Botswana known as DK Superior Pty Ltd. This is fatal to the application,’ he said.

Kachelhoffer also pointed to earlier High Court proceedings in which the Tcheku Trust filed an agreement showing it had contracted with DK Superior, a South African company. ‘The First Respondent is not party to such an agreement. This is a further basis to demonstrate that the First Respondent has no locus standi,’ he said, adding that the same agreement had previously been filed before the court by DK Superior’s own attorneys.

In response, Shamukuni accused Old Man’s Pan of failing to fully disclose the scope of the Court of Appeal interdict. ‘There is a matter of substance that should be raised upfront; failure by the Applicant to disclose that the interdict restrained the Tcheku Community Development Trust and its board from hunting, or permitting any persons to hunt on their behalf or under their direction,’ he said.

Shamukuni further maintained that the hunting quota for 2025 had been sold to DK Superior before the interdict came into effect. ‘The Applicant has not gainsaid the First Respondent’s assertion that the hunting quota for 2025 was sold to them prior to the interdict,’ he stated.

On the question of legal standing, Shamukuni explained that ‘DK Superior Proprietary Limited is the registered business name of Shamron Group, a company duly incorporated under the laws of Botswana.’ He said DK Superior (Pty) Limited of South Africa is the majority shareholder of Shamron.

‘The First Respondent made a bona fide mistake in believing that since the company was trading under its registered business name, that name could equally be used in litigation,’ Shamukuni said.

It has since emerged that the matter has taken a new turn with Shamukuni withdrawing the case from the Maun High Court when it was scheduled to return on 24 November 2025. It remains unclear what the next legal step will be.