Stemming from his hatred of “perpetual re-eligibility”, Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) constructed the two-term presidential limit. It is said that as his own second term drew to a close, he was invited by the Vermont legislature to consider running for another term. He declined. Jefferson believed that perpetual reeligibility reduces a public office into an inheritance – and that a representative Government responsible at short periods is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind.
Claims that President Khama might run a third term were so serious that they caused the Office of the President to issue an emotive, personal and un-presidential official statement rebutting such claims on the 21st September 2015. The OP attributed the “deliberately false” claims to “those who are well known for wayward behaviour within the media fraternity.” A simple and objective rebuttal of the main issue without a buffet of ad hominem attacks would have been an appropriate response from the OP.
A citizen of Africa should not be blamed for harbouring the possibility of a president over running their term in office. The media is entitled to speculate – and when the media speculates, it must not be criticised and accused of propagating falsity. The mere fact that we have not had such an incident in Botswana has little to do with the question of its occurrence in the future. Further, promises by politicians tend to depreciate exponentially, and truth is not a variable factor.
It is not the first time that the issue of a third term in office arises. It also arose during former President Festus Mogae’s time. Dr Jeff Ramsay, who was then Mogae’s Private Secretary, is reported to have fielded similar questions on this subject in 2006. He informed Mmegi that Mogae was a strong believer in the two term rule and that he intended to follow the constitutional requirements. At the time, the OP did not accuse the media of wayward behaviour. In fact, there are even some members of Parliament such as the then MP for Francistown South, Khumo Maoto, who made calls for President Mogae to run for a third term. It is unclear why the OP responded with so much annoyance this time.
Despite the rebuttal, we must still establish the legal feasibility of such an occurrence. I have previously expressed my view – I do not believe President Khama will run a third term. But belief doesn’t beget facts, faith is just a feeling.
President Khama assumed office on 1st April 2008. Under the Constitution, the President holds office for an aggregate period not exceeding 10 years beginning from the date of his first assumption of office of President. He “ceases to hold office at the expiry of an aggregate period of 10 years or when the person elected at the next election of the President following dissolution of Parliament assumes office.”
The word “aggregate” plays a very special role in this wording. It means that we must count 10 years across the terms where a president assumes the office of President in the middle of another president’s term. This avoids a president from arguing that, “since I assumed office during President X’s term, that term was not my term and therefore, it should not be counted in computing the 10 years.”
According to this provision, President Khama ceases to hold office of President on the 1st April 2018, which, in my computation, amounts to an aggregate period of 10 years. But the Constitution provides an alternative – alternatively, the President ceases to hold office, “when the person elected at the next election of the President following dissolution of Parliament assumes office.”
The alternative is not a model of clarity. It appears to permit a running president whose term has expired to contend that – “I know the 10 years has expired, but under the Constitution I cease to hold office after the expiration of 10 years or when the person elected at the next election of the President following dissolution of Parliament assumes office, I will wait for the person elected at the next election to assume office and then I will cease to hold office.” If that interpretation is accepted, then there is a possibility that a president may overrun the 10 years limit.
I do not accept that is the intended meaning. Whilst it is not explicit from the provision, it appears that the alternative is intended to operate when the 10 years limit has not expired and elections are held following dissolution of Parliament at which the next President is elected.
Thus, under the Constitution, on 1st April 2018, the current President shall cease to hold office. When he ceases to hold office, the person holding the office of Vice President shall assume office as President with effect from the date when the current President ceases to hold office.
Can Parliament amend the Constitution to alter the presidential term limit? Yes. But the Bill altering the term must be supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the Members of the Assembly. The ruling party can achieve the required threshold to pass such a Bill.
The Constitution places a presidential term limit, but, as matters stand, it is a limit that is, legally, subject to the whim, quirk and vagaries of the ruling party. Predicting the behaviour of politicians has no science about it. Purely as a matter of political self-preservation, one cannot hasten to rule out third term as one of the methods that the ruling party may use if it does not discover other equally effective tools such as altering the laws of elections.