I n many respects, 2008 was a turning point for media freedom and freedom of expression in Botswana. The 2008 Reporters Sans Frontiers report observed that there are problem areas that render work difficult for journalists. In this report, the state of the media environment in Botswana dropped in rank from “satisfactory situation” to “noticeable problems”. There are many reasons for the current state of affairs. On April 1, 2008 Botswana’s political landscape was transformed by the inauguration of Ian Khama Seretse Khama as the head of state. The Khama-led administration came into office when there was already underway a slew of government-initiated legislative and administrative mechanisms and processes that were viewed by many within the media and civil society as a lethal blow to democratic and civil liberties. The media community in Botswana was irked by the new president listing media indiscipline and recklessness among the many social ills plaguing the country, equating it with spousal abuse and drunken-driving. The frigid view that Khama held towards the independent print media in his previous position as army commander seemed set to continue in his presidency. Legislative environment The Media Practitioners Act of 2008 was the sticking point in the relations between the government and the media. The passing of this Act in December 2008 has far-reaching implications for the media in Botswana. The government, through the Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, saw the need to pass a legislative act of Parliament to establish a media council to monitor the activities of the media and ensure the maintenance of professional standards. The act also calls for the registration and accreditation of resident media practitioners, and imposes heavy penalties of P5000 (equivalent to about US$670 at April 2009 exchange rates) or up to three years’ imprisonment or a combination of the two for anyone reporting on an event without accreditation. The act criminalises ordinary citizens’ involvement in media activities, narrows the scope of media practice and may be used to suppress alternative and dissenting views. The act also undermines editorial independence, while giving too much power to the minister. A considerable number of media stakeholders strongly disapprove of the Media Practitioners Act, as it serves to restrict media practices in violation of the country’s constitutional provisions of freedom of speech. The passing of this act is accompanied by a set of legislative measures that limit basic civil and democratic liberties. The establishment of a Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services is viewed by sections of the media and civil society as having chilling implications on the country’s democratic traditions and culture. The passing of the Public Service Act; the institution of a Government Communications and Information Systems; and the government’s reluctance to introduce a Freedom of Information Act hinder press freedom and the free flow of information. The recent move by the government to impose a prohibitive fine of P1000 (about US$134) and a waiting period of 12 months on individuals who need replacements for lost passports has serious implications for freedom of movement and, subsequently, that of expression. Media-government relationship The relationship between the government and the media is characterised by mutual distrust, accusations and counter-accusations. The state is biased against the media, particularly the independent media. This is reflected in the government’s tendency to institute measures that restrain the emergence of independent media, by, for example, the recent commercialisation of state media. The Constitution of the Republic of Botswana upholds freedom of expression, So This Is Democracy? 2008 -16- Media Institute of Southern Africa