The Civil Aviation Authority of Botswana (CAAB) is grappling with deep organisational, financial, and governance hurdles that complicate its mandate as an autonomous industry regulator.
Key among these challenges is financial and operational distress. The parastatal struggles with 23 strategic local airfields that generate zero revenue. Additionally, CAAB has accumulated a massive P150 million debt owed to local land boards.
The Ministry also forced CAAB to issue an emergency P12 million cash bailout to the financially crippled Air Botswana. These financial pressures are compounded by regulatory compliance concerns. Using regulatory funds to subsidise an airline that CAAB directly oversees has triggered intense criticism over severe conflicts of interest.
Further complicating the situation are governance and restructuring controversies, which have resulted in the suspension of key executive leadership. In April 2026, CEO Captain Thuto Toise placed five top-tier directors on sudden administrative leave. The sweeping suspensions—affecting the heads of human resources, finance, projects, airport services, and engineering—stem from a secret internal probe. The forensic investigation targets historical internal issues, including past public allegations of widespread nepotism and administrative abuse.
Moreover, to manage legacy transitions, CAAB is actively undergoing a complex restructuring to split the current body into two separate parastatal entities: an independent regulator and a commercial service provider.
Amid these controversies, Staff Writer BABOLOKI MEEKWANE speaks with Chief Public Affairs Officer Modipe Nkwe to unravel the mess at CAAB.
Q: Why were government subventions allegedly recorded as earned revenue in financial statements, and who authorised this systematic misrepresentation of CAAB’s profitability?
A: In the Authority’s financial statements, government subvention has been accounted for in accordance with the principles of IAS 20 (Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance). In line with IAS 20, government subvention is recognised when there is reasonable assurance that:
The subvention is recognised in profit or loss over the periods in which the Authority recognises the related expenses for which the grant is intended to compensate. This ensures compliance with the matching principle prescribed under IAS 20.
Where the subvention relates to operational expenditure, the income is recognised within profit or loss to match the associated costs incurred during the reporting period. Furthermore, the accounting treatment adopted ensures that the financial statements fairly present the substance of the transaction and do not overstate income in any reporting period.
Q: How many ‘ghost workers’ were identified in the recent forensic audit, and what is the total amount of public funds lost to these non-existent employees?
A: The forensic audit process is ongoing and has not yet been concluded. As such, it would be premature for the Authority to speculate on or confirm specific findings or any purported financial losses.
Q: What specific disciplinary or legal actions are being taken against the five senior executives, including directors of Finance, HR, and Engineering, suspended in April following the audit shockwaves?
A: The senior executives have not been suspended but have been placed on administrative leave to allow the forensic audit and related internal processes to proceed independently. This is a standard governance and procedural measure and should not be construed as a determination of wrongdoing.
Q: Can CAAB explain why expensive international board training trips to Canada and Singapore were prioritised while critical safety equipment, such as backup generators for air navigation, remained unfunded?
A: The visit to Singapore was primarily for familiarisation with a leading global aviation hub, providing board members with valuable insights into international best practices, innovation, and operational excellence within the aviation industry. Such exposure is essential to enable the board to effectively guide the Authority in aligning with global standards. The travel to Canada was to attend the 2017 ICAO State Meeting, a critical platform where key decisions shaping the global aviation industry are deliberated.
Participation in such forums ensures that the Authority remains informed and contributes to international aviation developments that ultimately impact Botswana. These engagements were therefore prioritised to enhance the board’s capacity to provide informed oversight and strategic direction. The Authority acknowledges the importance of balancing such capacity-building initiatives with operational needs, including critical safety infrastructure, and continues to address these requirements within available resources and planning frameworks.
Q: How did CAAB allow its debt to land boards for 23 strategic airfields to spiral to an estimated P150 million without securing a sustainable funding model from the government?
A: The debt stems from unanticipated increases in lease fee rates by the Land Boards. Upon learning of the imminent increase, the Authority promptly engaged the Land Board Authorities in the districts where its assets are located. These discussions sought to understand the rationale behind the rate escalations while also highlighting the critical role of airfields as essential national infrastructure.
Following these engagements, the previously increased fees were revised to more affordable levels. Consequently, CAAB determined that there was no need to seek supplementary funding from the shareholder, as any additional government support must be fully justified before payment can be processed.
The Authority continues to work closely with the land authorities to resolve outstanding matters, ensuring that gaps are addressed while maintaining the delivery of aviation services to Batswana
Q: Why does CAAB continue to maintain ‘strategic’ airfields that collectively generate less than P1,000 per month yet cost millions in staffing and upkeep?
A: The Civil Aviation Authority of Botswana manages strategic airfields nationwide to ensure connectivity, medical rescue, safety, and national development. While some airfields generate limited direct revenue, they play a vital role in enabling access to remote areas, supporting government and emergency medical operations, facilitating tourism, and strengthening national preparedness. The Authority remains committed to operational sustainability and is actively engaging stakeholders to explore models that enhance utilisation and cost efficiency, ensuring these airfields continue to deliver long-term value for the nation.
Q: What was the economic justification for spending over P430,000 to fence the Mosu Airstrip at the request of former officials, only for the authority to later declare it had no use for it?
A: CAAB was instructed by the then mother Ministry to construct the perimeter fence. CAAB was not involved in the construction of the Mosu airfield.
CAAB does not need the Mosu Airfield in its inventory, as there are other airfields in its vicinity, such as Nata and Gweta (owned by CAAB), Orapa Airfield (owned by Debswana), and Sua Pan (owned by Soda Ash). It would therefore make no economic sense to own Mosu.
Q: To what extent has the increase in land rates rendered the 2024–2029 Strategic Plan financially obsolete before its completion?
A: Any increase in operational expenditure inevitably affects an organisation’s liquidity. When the adjusted land rates were introduced in 2022, CAAB promptly engaged the relevant District Land Boards to understand the rationale behind the increase. This was particularly important given CAAB’s extensive land holdings, including approximately 23 airfields across the country, many of which generate limited income due to low activity levels.
As a result of these engagements, the ministry concerned revised the rates substantially—from P1.5 million to P5,000 per annum. We regard this revised rate as both reasonable and sustainable, and therefore it does not render our current Strategic Plan financially obsolete.
Q: Why has the legal battle with 66 employees over the 2015 restructuring exercise been allowed to drag on for nearly a decade, further depleting the authority’s already depleted pockets?
A: The legal dispute was concluded in February 2022. It must be noted that the Authority has no total control over when a legal matter in the courts is concluded, as it involves other stakeholders.
Q: How does management justify the extreme salary gap where the CEO’s compensation is reportedly high, while frontline firefighting staff remain stuck at the lowest pay bands?
A: An employee’s salary is highly confidential and is at times negotiated by both parties. We are not aware of extreme salary gaps in the CAAB structure.
Q: What are the legacy issues from the transition to a parastatal that continue to drive high staff turnover among critical safety inspectors?
A: Staff turnover is attributable to many factors, including competitive remuneration packages from operators, personal and family considerations, as well as opportunities for career advancement and professional growth.
Q: Why are significant numbers of airstrips across the country currently lying idle and failing safety compliance, despite Botswana’s goals for tourism and air access?
A: The Authority continues to face financial and operational challenges that limit its ability to maintain a broad network of airfields. While these airfields are not primarily commercial revenue-generating assets, they serve as vital national infrastructure supporting emergency response, medical evacuations, security operations, disaster relief, humanitarian access, VIP and government travel, as well as tourism in remote areas. To address these constraints, the Authority is actively engaging with the government and other stakeholders to explore collaborative approaches for sustaining these facilities. These efforts aim to ensure regulatory compliance, enhance operational readiness, and advance the country’s broader tourism and air access objectives.
Q: Given the P33 billion in potential damage identified in the National Forensic Audit, what portion of this loss is directly attributed to CAAB’s procurement irregularities and project cost overruns?
A: As mentioned, the forensic audit process is still ongoing and has not yet been concluded. As such, it would be premature for the Authority to speculate on or confirm any purported financial losses.
Q: Is the planned 2025/2026 split of CAAB into two separate entities (a regulator and a service provider) a genuine efficiency move, or a strategy to bury the financial liabilities of the current structure?
A: The CAAB split is meant to address operational and governance issues and to improve the regulator and service provider’s efficiency, in line with standard international practice.
