A fresh legal battle has erupted over control of the Public Service Bargaining Council (PSBC), as the National Amalgamated Local and Central Government and Parastatal Workers Union returns to the Maun High Court in an effort to dismantle the council’s current leadership and overturn key decisions made in January.
Court documents obtained by WeekendPost reveal that the union filed a Notice of Motion dated April 8, 2026, naming the Attorney General of Botswana and several public sector unions as respondents. These include the Botswana Teachers Union, Botswana Public Employees Union, Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union, Botswana Landboards and Local Authorities Workers Union, Botswana Nurses Union, and Botswana Doctors Union, along with PSBC Secretary Andrew Motsamai and Deputy Secretary Tobokani Rari.
At the core of the application is a challenge to the governance of the PSBC. The union seeks to nullify the appointments of the council’s senior secretariat and to question the legal foundation of the Council itself.
The union asserts that the PSBC Constitution, signed by the government and seven major trade unions, is legally binding and in full effect, granting exclusive authority over the Council to its founding members. “The Constitution of the Public Service Bargaining Council signed by the applicant and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents is binding on the applicant and the 1st to the 7th respondents and is of full force and effect,” the union states in its court papers.
The dispute centers on a contentious meeting held on January 30, 2026. The union argues that both the meeting and its resolutions should be declared invalid and without legal effect. It is seeking a court order removing Motsamai and Rari from their positions and restraining them from representing the Council, effectively freezing the current leadership.
“Declare that the purported meeting of the 30th January 2026 held by the parties is invalid and a nullity and all decisions and resolutions adopted at the meeting, including that the appointments of the 8th and 9th respondents as Secretary and Deputy Secretary respectively of the Public Service Bargaining Council, are invalid, null and void,” the application reads.
Beyond annulling the January meeting, the union is pressing for broader structural remedies. It asks the court to compel the Attorney General to issue a notice to all signatories of the PSBC Constitution, ghexcluding the eighth and ninth respondents—to convene a meeting within 30 days of judgment. This meeting would address agenda items set out in clauses 5.1 and 5.9 of the Constitution.
The union further argues that if the Attorney General fails or refuses to issue such a notice, any of the signatories should be allowed to initiate the process. It also proposes that any resolutions adopted by those present should remain binding, even if some parties choose not to attend.
Highlighting the depth of the governance dispute, the union offers an alternative remedy. Should the court find the current PSBC Constitution “incurably bad,” it urges the court to declare it null and void entirely. In that case, the union seeks an order compelling the Attorney General to convene new negotiations within 30 days to draft a fresh constitution, in accordance with Section 52 of the Public Service Act.
Similarly, if the Attorney General fails to initiate this process, the union contends that any party should be permitted to do so, with decisions made by those present remaining binding regardless of attendance.
This latest move follows an earlier setback for the union in the Lobatse High Court, which dismissed its urgent application to block Motsamai’s appointment as PSBC Secretary.
At that time, the union sought an interim interdict to prevent the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) and other respondents from implementing the January 30 decision, arguing that the PSBC was not properly constituted and therefore lacked the authority to make binding decisions. Government and supporting unions countered that the meeting was lawful.
The court, however, declined to grant the urgent relief.