A court is meant to settle disputes, but the proposal to create one has become a dispute of its own. Botswana’s debate over a dedicated Constitutional Court pits an argument about strengthening the rule of law against an argument about the price of running it. On 10 February 2026, at a kgotla in Selebi-Phikwe, Assistant Minister Moswaane stepped into that tension directly. He urged the community to support the proposed Constitutional Court, making his case amid the cost concerns that have shadowed the idea.

The Proposal: Why a Dedicated Court Is on the Table

A Constitutional Court is a specialist bench whose work is confined to constitutional questions — the interpretation of the founding law, the limits of state power, the protection of fundamental rights. Many jurisdictions create one to give the most consequential legal questions a dedicated, expert forum rather than leaving them to compete for time on a general court roll.

The argument in favour is institutional weight. A standing constitutional bench signals that the country treats its founding document as a living instrument worth a forum of its own, and can develop a coherent, expert body of constitutional jurisprudence over time. For a democracy refining its governance architecture, that is not a small claim.

A dedicated court is a statement about how seriously a nation takes its own constitution.

The Objection: The Cost Concern

Against that sits the practical objection Moswaane was addressing: cost. A new superior court is not a line item that disappears after launch. It implies judges, registries, premises, support staff and recurrent funding, drawn from a public purse that must already stretch across health, education, infrastructure and the broader administration of justice.

The concern is legitimate and familiar. Every institution that strengthens governance also competes for the resources that deliver services, and a fiscally cautious public is right to ask what a Constitutional Court would deliver that the existing judiciary cannot. The honest answer is that the value of constitutional certainty is real but hard to price, while the costs are concrete and immediate — which is exactly why the debate is sharp.

The case for the court is measured in principle; the case against it is measured in Pula.

The Kgotla: Where the Argument Is Tested

That Moswaane chose to make his appeal at a kgotla is itself part of the story. The kgotla remains a central forum of Botswana’s consultative tradition, where leaders are expected to explain, persuade and answer to citizens face to face rather than legislate over their heads. Taking a contested constitutional reform to Selebi-Phikwe and asking for unity is the system working as designed: a national question put to a community for its consent.

His call for unity also acknowledges a risk — that a reform of this magnitude can divide opinion along cost-versus-principle lines and stall. Constitutional change tends to require broad buy-in to carry legitimacy, and a court established over deep public scepticism would begin its life on weak foundations. Building consensus is therefore not a courtesy but a precondition.

A constitutional reform earns its authority at the kgotla before it earns it in the statute book.

The So-What: Institution-Building Is a Cost-Benefit Argument

For Botswana’s operators, investors and professionals, the Constitutional Court debate matters beyond the legal fraternity. Predictable, well-grounded constitutional adjudication is part of the institutional bedrock that long-term capital relies on; the strength of a country’s courts is a quiet input into every major investment decision. The cost objection is real, but it is a cost-benefit question, not a simple expense.

The path Moswaane is advocating — making the case openly, at the kgotla, cost concerns and all — is the right one regardless of where the decision lands. An institution argued into being on its merits is sturdier than one imposed. The question Botswana now faces is whether the long-term value of a dedicated constitutional forum is worth its near-term price, and that is a debate best had in the open.