Limited freedom and intolerance in Botswana

Botswana has held ten successive formal elections without fail since independence in 1966. The country has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries at independence to an upper middle income one. On the basis of these, Botswana has been regarded as a political and economic model that has been largely praised for the resilience of her democratic institutions, respect for civil liberties, a high degree of political tolerance and an economic success story by African standards. To this extent, Botswana has been perceived as exceptional compared to most African countries. This paper argues that despite having won international acclaim as an African ‘success miracle’, freedom and tolerance in the country exist within the limits set by the state. It is argued that there is limited freedom and growing intolerance of dissenting views by the political leadership. The Botswana state therefore perfectly fits the model of ‘authoritarian liberalism (Good 1996).     

Contempt of Court <Emphasis Type="Italic">In Facie Curiae</Emphasis>; Problems of Justification,Application and Control with Reference to the Situation in Botswana

The existence and exercise of the power to order summary punishment for contempt of court is a much contested terrain. Its antiquity and ubiquity pervade many states across the globe, and in particular in the Anglo-American legal system. This state of affairs has much to do with its very nature and justification. The procedure itself potentially compromises time honoured requirements and practices of due process of law, and also potentially sanctions the fusion of characteristics of an aggrieved person, prosecutor and judge in the same person. Notwithstanding these misgivings, it has continued to be practiced in many parts of the world. Given these exceptions to norms, its scope has been very difficult to delineate, to an extent that although attempts have been made to lay down general principles for its application, the range of conduct necessary for its invocation is so amorphous, malleable and indefinite as to present a difficulty in justification. This has raised many questions both as to its legality and or justification. This article is just but one attempt to answer the questions raised, to the extent possible, and later on to survey its exercise in the context of the jurisdiction of Botswana.