Am I reading Ndulamo Morima's analysis of Presidential terms correctly?

In the WeekendPost weekly newspaper (February 24 - March ?) the columnist Ndulamo Morima, a lawyer by profession and a constitutional specialist of note, posed the question "Do our presidents retire or they resign?" I am not a lawyer. Morima went to great length to explain why in his view our presidents retire, rather than resign.

I read Morima's analysis, partly with the hope that I could find definitive proof that our constitution demands that the President serves ONLY two terms as is often touted by those who claim that we have an excellent constitution. From Morima's article I failed to find any such definitive proof. I am not faulting Morima. His article never set out to provide any such proof.

What I think I found however, is proof that the constitution is cleverly crafted to grant the President an indefinite term of office. The President has to leave office after the ten year "aggregate" period OR after Parliament is dissolved and the next President is elected and ready to assume office.

But it seems to me that there is nothing preventing the incumbent from being THAT next President again! In other words, Morima has established that President Khama can constitutionally remain in office until the next general election in 2019. It seems to me that if his party wins an absolute majority, with or without Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) help, his party can (through Parliament) elect him for another ten year term, and another, and another....

I am not on social media, so if this matter has already been clarified on such, I beg everybody's pardon. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Our tribes and totems

Strange things in this world

What's wrong with Botswana cartoonists?