By end of April 2020, the numbers had risen to 22 with one fatality and two local transmissions, the rest being imported. This prompted government to put measures in place to contain the virus.
These measures, the SoE and nationwide lockdown came into effect in response to the increasing cases. Upon the introduction of the responses to the pandemic, it immediately became apparent that there would be need for support to human rights defenders in the country, as well as the protection of vulnerable groups in the country, in the context of the pandemic and beyond. This inevitably saw an emergence of a new cohort of vulnerable people and communities in the country. Along with this was an added layer of vulnerability for those populations already experiencing vulnerability in the country.
As various civil society organisations found, the SoE and the periods of extreme social distancing introduced in response to the pandemic created a gap in accessing legal redress for human rights violations, decreased coordination of duty bearers in addressing human rights violations, affected the coordination of legal, medical and psycho-social support and adversely impacted the capacity and commitment of civil society in addressing human rights. In the last installment of this column, we engaged with the definition of the SoE, observing that it is an emergency law made by a declaration introduced in response to an extraordinary situation, which poses an extraordinary threat to the country.
The declaration, as we observed, would suspend certain normal functions of government, and limiting certain human behaviours. Further to this definition, there are two components to a SoE. There should be a legal framework consisting of the constitutional and legislative bases for the SoE; and an operational framework involving the organisational structure and strategic plans for dealing with the SoE.
The constitution adequately provides for the SoE, and the circumstances under which the declaration for one may be made. Section 17 sufficiently empowers the President, and there is no need to get into a discussion on this at this point. In his national address on Independence Day, the President spoke of the operational framework and the various strategies introduced to respond to the pandemic. A presidential COVID-19 Task Force, chaired by the President was convened.
The Task Force was constituted to coordinate all national activities pertaining to the containment and control of the pandemic in Botswana. The government further introduced a Specific COVID-19 Framework for Emergency Response, which established a Five-Stage Plan, similar in nature to the South African framework of different levels. At national level, and not without reason, there was a lot of criticism about the decision to have the Task Force under the President, and not in the Ministry of Health and Wellness which would, as most expect, lead the fight against the pandemic. This decision about the Task Force seemed to stir a lot of friction between the country leadership and the ministry, resulting in questionable terminations of employment and really ugly public disgruntlement and fear within the ministry.
Essentially, there appeared, to an outsider, to be division between Task Force and the ministry, with one seeming like the prodigal son who still had his father’s favour and the other being that brother who stayed, and had always been there, but was never seen. If all this confusion was happening at that level, it is not difficult to imagine what this translated to amongst the citizens and residents in the country. If those at the top are fighting, in any crisis, it is bound to adversely affect the most neglected people in our society.
If this were a dramatic play, this would be the part which would read, “enter the othered”! It is no secret that the SoE and specifically the extreme social distancing periods in the SoE created a conducive environment for the well documented abuse of women and children. With predators stuck at home with their families, the vulnerability of victims and survivors was heightened. If nothing else, we saw that sexual violence is hardly ever by a stranger! We also saw the wrongful evictions of LGBT persons from their homes, on the basis of their sexuality and/or gender identities. This roused great anxiety among the community.
Home does not bear the same warm cozy place to fall back on for all of us. For others, home is a site of trauma and rejection; and the thought of having to be stuck there for extended periods of time, became paralysing. What we hardly saw, though, were the struggles of the undocumented migrants, some of who died, because Maboipelego did not bring food to the homes of non-citizens, despite their diabetic status. Others, for the reason that they could not work, did not have an income, and yet had families to feed. We also did not see the prisons, at all! I imagine being locked up in a lockdown presents a lot of unique challenges which one should not be exposed to, under any circumstances.
Families could not visit loved ones. Also, the execution of two murderers which was carried out in February 2021 brought attention to the country once more, for her ongoing death penalty laws. In the next few weeks, we will be exploring the effectiveness of the measures, as well as exploring their necessity, under the circumstances. Our specific focus will be those othered by the response measures, and their lived experiences. Were there “others” who were unconsidered by the responses to COVID-19?
