In a way the gesture by the opposition was a reflection of the controversy that has characterised the Bill ever since its genesis some eight months ago. In my contribution to the different stages of debate I indicated that the Bill was arguably the most sensitive piece of legislation proposed in post independence Botswana. With the exception of the National Security Bill of 1986, no legislation has ever aroused this level of consternation. With respect to that law, which has for all intents and purposes gathered dust, a case could be made for it because at the time the apartheid regime, in its dying throes had taken its policy of total strategy to neighbouring states with tragic consequences.
With that dark chapter in our past, many questioned the motive for the 2006 Intelligence Bill. With this backdrop in mind, a coalition of local civil society organisations convened a forum at which legislators were lobbied. This took place amidst robust public discourse between supporters of the Bill and its opponents. The discourse revealed two main schools of thought. On the one hand were those whom I define as securocrats and on the other were those I refer to as liberals. To explain the dichotomy the securocrats took the view that the Bill was a necessary instrument to guarantee the security of the country. They argued that the country was faced with many potential threats, some not always overt, to its economy and overall stability. Across the divide the liberals were sceptical about the security imperative because they could not discern any clear and present threat to the country's national security. In the view of the latter school the Bill was unnecessary. They also expressed concern that the legislation could be used to infringe on civil liberties and individual freedoms.
Legislators were therefore faced with a choice between the two contending camps. It is within this context that a number of amendments were proposed by some legislators to try and strike a balance between the security imperative of the securocrats and the primacy of the constitution and civil liberties as espoused by the liberals. As someone aligned with the liberal school, my opinion was that the country would not suffer any great calamity in the absence of the legislation. But having noted that, I also had to consider the material fact that the Bill was already before Parliament. In that regard, instead of simply rejecting it, which would not have altered the outcome, I could at the minimum seek to introduce amendments, which would take care of the concerns of the general public. Such concerns could only be addressed by providing for strong oversight mechanisms to promote accountability and protect civil liberties. It was a view shared by other legislators.
