There’s a heated debate in Botswana right now about the relationship between President Duma Boko and businessman Mr. Zunaid Moti, especially when it comes to building schools and clinics through the African Hero initiative.
Sure, it’s fair to ask questions whenever public institutions team up with private interests. But what’s troubling is how quickly this discussion is turning into outright criticism of a project that’s actually bringing much-needed infrastructure to Botswana – without first asking a bigger question: What’s wrong with private capital stepping in to help build schools and clinics when the government itself says it can’t cover the costs?
Take the Block 7 school and clinic as an example. The President has openly said the government didn’t spend a dime on building the school. What the government did provide was the land, and they’ll be responsible for running the facilities afterward – supplying teachers, health workers, and medicines. The school is set to serve about 380 students, while the clinic will cater to hundreds of patients.
Before dismissing this kind of partnership, shouldn’t we ask: Would Botswana rather have these new facilities or just another empty plot because the government couldn’t afford to build them?
Botswana isn’t swimming in extra schools and clinics. On the contrary, communities all over the country still need more classrooms, health centers, and better access to basic services. And many of our existing public schools are falling apart.
The government knows this too. That’s why it created the Education Infrastructure and Management Company – to rally resources and fix up schools that need maintenance and refurbishment.
So here’s the deal: Botswana faces two big infrastructure challenges at once. We need to build new schools and clinics, and we need to repair the ones we already have.
If private investors are willing to bring in capital, technology, and fresh construction methods to tackle the first challenge, while the government handles the second through programs like the Education Infrastructure and Management Company, why should we automatically see that as a bad thing?
Maybe this project should push us to rethink how Botswana finances its development.
A lot of the current fuss seems to come from Mr. Moti’s connection to President Boko. That’s understandable; people have every right to be curious about ties between political leaders and influential business figures. But we should be careful not to assume that because they know each other, the whole initiative is shady.
Botswana has long worked with private companies to provide goods, services, and infrastructure. Over the years, governments have struck deals with private firms for everything from vehicles and equipment to technology, construction, and defense.
Sure, some of those deals raised eyebrows about costs, procurement processes, and business-politics relationships. But we never decided to cut private companies out of national development altogether.
Let’s jog some memories: In the past, government vehicles were bought from monopolies at questionable prices and serviced at exorbitant rates. The Botswana Defence Force spent billions on vehicles, armor, planes, and even food from certain suppliers at inflated costs. Yet now, someone partnering with the government in the private sector to benefit the nation faces backlash.
The principle should be the same today.
If private capital can help build the infrastructure Botswana needs, what matters is the deal’s quality and its benefits; not just who the investor is or their political ties.
There’s a big difference between government buying goods with taxpayer money and a private investor footing the bill to build public infrastructure. When the government spends public funds, the key question is whether they’re using that money wisely. When a private investor puts up capital, the questions shift: What does Botswana get? What responsibilities does the government take on? Who owns the asset?
Those are fair questions. But they should lead us to better partnerships, not knee-jerk rejection of private sector involvement based on unfounded corruption fears.
Botswana desperately needs to broaden how it thinks about funding development. For decades, we’ve relied mostly on government to finance, build, and maintain public infrastructure. That’s getting harder to pull off as demands grow and resources tighten.
Why should the government have to foot the entire bill?
There’s plenty of room to leverage private capital, philanthropy, technology, institutional partnerships, and other funding sources to speed up national development.
This is especially true in sectors like education and healthcare, where the social payoff from infrastructure is huge. A school isn’t just a building, it’s an investment in people. A clinic isn’t just a structure, it’s an investment in community health and productivity.
If a private investor is willing to put money into these kinds of projects, shouldn’t we be thinking about how to encourage more of that?
The goal isn’t to replace government. The government still has to make sure citizens have access to quality schools, healthcare, and other essential services.
The goal is to boost government’s capacity by bringing other resources to the table.
So the conversation around the African Hero initiative shouldn’t boil down to Mr. Moti or his relationship with President Boko. It shouldn’t become another chapter in Botswana’s growing political divide. The real question is whether this initiative delivers real, lasting value to Batswana.
If private capital is building schools and clinics that communities desperately need—without saddling the country with unreasonable costs, then that’s something to celebrate. That doesn’t mean every private project should be accepted blindly. Legitimate questions should always be asked. But we need to separate healthy scrutiny from reflexive suspicion.
Let’s also be honest about the bigger picture. If private companies can provide vehicles, equipment, and technology to government, why is it suddenly a problem when they build schools or clinics?
Maybe we should be asking why Botswana hasn’t done more to encourage creative private involvement in public infrastructure.
Our needs are huge. Government resources are limited. Private capital is out there. The challenge is figuring out how to bring these together in ways that truly benefit the country. That’s the opportunity initiatives like African Hero present.
Botswana needs schools, clinics, jobs, investments, and new infrastructure;while also fixing what we already have. We can’t complain about shortages and then reject every effort to bring in non-government resources.
So maybe the question isn’t: “Why is Moti building schools and clinics?”
Maybe it should be: “Why did it take us so long to find smarter ways to get more schools and clinics for Batswana?”
That’s the conversation we should be having.
Instead of viewing private investment in public infrastructure through the lens of political personalities, we should see it as a chance to rethink how a country with limited resources can tap all available capital, expertise, and innovation to speed up development.
Botswana needs more development, not fewer paths to make it happen.
