The ongoing dispute between the government and public sector unions has taken a sharp turn, with allegations that direct payments to members of the Botswana Land Boards, Local Authorities and Health Workers Union (BLLAHWU) were designed to undermine collective bargaining.
These claims form the core of an affidavit filed before the Court of Appeal by Robert Rabasimane, chief negotiator for six other public service unions. The unions have filed an appeal against Industrial Judge Goodwill Mokofi’s ruling, which lifted an interdiction that had temporarily blocked salary increases for BLLAHWU members. The decision paved the way for BLLAHWU members — as well as other non-unionised civil servants — to receive back pay dating from July 2025.
The unions involved in the appeal include the National Amalgamated Local, Central, Parastatal and Government Workers Union (NALCPGWU), Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU), Botswana Teachers Union (BTU), Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU), Botswana Nurses Union (BONU), and Botswana Doctors Union (BDU).
Rabasimane accused the government of employing “tactics designed to frustrate, delay and ultimately nullify” the negotiation process. His affidavit detailed how these actions undermined the unions’ application — first lodged before the Industrial Court on July 14, 2025, with hearings scheduled to begin just three days later.
According to Rabasimane, Directive No. 1 of 2025 — issued only two days before the unions filed their case — accelerated salary adjustments for BLLAHWU members without following established procedures. “Payments were accelerated in a clear breach of procedure and government protocols,” he said, adding that instead of routing funds through relevant ministries for distribution, the Office of the Accountant General made direct payments to employees. In some instances, councils reportedly diverted money from undesignated funds, endangering other financial commitments.
“These actions were a clear intention to render the reliefs we seek moot and overtaken by events,” Rabasimane argued before the Court of Appeal.
He further accused the government of manipulating budgetary figures to stifle meaningful bargaining. Initially, the state presented a “final” merged allowance proposal of P256 million and refused repeated requests for disaggregated data. Rabasimane said this rigidity effectively blocked counterproposals and reduced talks to “bargaining in bad faith.”
During Industrial Court proceedings, it emerged that the proposed budget would only cover seven months of salary increments. Within days, government revised the figure upward to P491 million — nearly double the original. “This volte-face confirmed that the budget figure was neither genuine nor fixed but a negotiating ploy,” Rabasimane said.
The affidavit also cited instances where the government postponed or abandoned talks. A negotiation meeting scheduled for August 18–19, 2025, was abruptly cancelled, with no explanation provided to the unions. Government officials failed to attend and postponed discussions indefinitely.
“These obstructive tactics demonstrate a consistent pattern of deliberate delay, obstruction and manipulation,” Rabasimane said. “The actions were calculated to sabotage hardworking employees in the public service and frustrate the relief sought by the applicants.”
