Remembering Lotlamoreng�s contributions at Ntlo ya Dikgosi
Tsaone Basimanebotlhe | Wednesday June 17, 2015 14:42
Kgosi Lotlamoreng 11 is the current deputy chairperson of Ntlo ya Dikgosi, after a re-election in 2015, a post he held in 2009, but lost to Kgosi Tshipe in 2013. Commenting on a motion of inclusion of children of unmarried men under leave travel concession Kgosi Lotlamoreng said: “ Pardon me Mr Chairman. It will appear like we are being unkind to the Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration.
“We have tried to talk to the Minister regarding the way he treats this house. We are not being vindictive but he is rather the one who is being unreasonable.
“This has resulted in us working with him the way we currently are. I want to assume that you Mr Chairman do not know the whereabouts of the Minister.
“We have tried talking to him but it seems he does not want to listen to us. On behalf of the Members of Ntlo ya Dikgosi, I request you Mr Chairman to ask for assistance from the Honourable Ministers present here so that they talk to him.
“Alternatively they could talk to his supervisors so that they know that he is not working with us to our expectations and he is not treating us well. We want to work well with him.
“Please request his colleagues at the Ministry of Presidential Affairs to talk to him because it might appear that we are not doing right by him when we inform him of how uncooperative he is to us.”
Deliberating on relocation of hardware stores to an industrial site in Molepolole:
“I want to believe that despite the fact that the area in which these businesses are allocated is not suitable, these traders did not allocate themselves that land.
“They were legally placed in those areas. Can an assessment be carried out so that those traders can be compensated when they move, just as it is always done when people are requested to make way for the developments?
“I do not want to believe that those people are there because they are not familiar with the law, but are there because they were allocated those pieces of land.”
Debating the Constitution Amendment Bill, which sought to increase the number of specially elected members of parliament from four to eight in 2009 which was section 42 (3) of the constitution:
“We have heard very well what the Government seeks from this bill. I am totally against what Parliament is trying to do.
“Mr Chairman, I am failing to understand the necessity of the amendment. Firstly, if this section has been in existence and in operation for a long time, what is wrong with that?
“It has been used for a long time even up to the present time. Secondly, I understand that it is amended to cater for youth, women and people with disabilities who happen to have difficulties being voted into Parliament.
“That is really not our problem, more so that I just heard the Minister stating that the electoral system of their political parties do not cater for them. “So what should we do if their electoral systems do not cater for them? It is an issue of their political parties; they should ensure that they cater for such people.
“I am afraid that some parties are going to take advantage of this section. If they need the youth, women or people with disabilities, then political parties ought to be encouraged to field them as their candidates so that they can be voted into Parliament looking at their potential. “I am against the idea that they should be voted into Parliament solely because they are young people. “It is a question of whether political parties do not deem it fit to vote for them because such candidates are there, but they cannot be voted into Parliament since voters do not want them.
“Do we now want to compensate them by appointing them specially elected members of Parliament?
What are the roles of the already appointed specially elected members of Parliament that are there? “Does the government question their ability? If so, then the government should come forth and explain.”