Members of Parliament have voiced strong opposition to the proposed Public Service Bill, criticizing its failure to acknowledge the dual nature of parliamentary and constituency staff. Lawmakers argue that these employees should be distinctly classified as political appointees, exempt from the restrictions that apply to career public servants.
During parliamentary debate, legislators expressed support for rules designed to preserve the civil service’s neutrality, emphasizing that such reforms aim to enhance governance, accountability, and public confidence in state institutions. Yet they contended that the bill overlooks those who serve directly under elected officials.
At the heart of their objection is the recognition that parliamentary aides and constituency officers function in a mixed political and administrative role. They insist these staffers should not be grouped with career civil servants.
The bill proposes to strengthen political impartiality within the public service by prohibiting government employees from engaging in partisan activities. This includes refraining from public endorsements or opposition of political parties, holding office in political organizations, participating in campaigns, or expressing political views that might compromise their neutrality.
Despite this, MPs from across the political spectrum argued that the legislation inadequately addresses the hybrid status of parliamentary staff.
Opposition Whip Carter Hikuama led the charge, calling for amendments that reflect the unique position of political aides.
“These employees are recruited based on trust and loyalty to the Member of Parliament and the political mandate they carry,” Mr. Hikuama said. “Their work is political by nature, and the law must recognise that reality rather than restrict it.”
He further highlighted the need to improve the welfare of parliamentary and constituency staff, who, despite their essential role in supporting elected representatives, have endured poor working conditions and job insecurity.
Mr. Hikuama also noted that Members of Parliament do not exercise direct administrative control over these employees, as staffing authority is formally vested in the Clerk of Parliament. He explained that this arrangement limits MPs’ managerial power over their own support teams.
Several MPs underscored that staff serving directly under elected representatives occupy political roles and should not be subjected to the same constraints as civil servants employed through the Directorate of Public Service Management.
“These employees are hired to support political work, constituency engagement, communication, and legislative duties,” said Goretetse Kekgonegile, Member of Parliament for Maun North. “We cannot treat political assistants and parliamentary aides as neutral civil servants when their work is inherently political and tied to the mandate of elected office.”
Others echoed these concerns, emphasizing that MPs must retain the right to appoint trusted personnel who understand their political agenda and can effectively support both parliamentary and constituency responsibilities.
A number of lawmakers also warned that the bill’s restrictions on political activity could unjustly curtail the rights of contract or term-based political appointees, who are not permanent public servants.
“These are not lifelong government employees. They serve at the pleasure of elected representatives, and their roles end when the political term ends,” said Arafat Khan, Member of Parliament for Molepolole South.
They cautioned that failing to distinguish between these categories risks legal challenges, operational disruptions, and staffing instability within parliamentary offices.
Some legislators further warned that if the bill is not carefully refined, it could deter skilled professionals from accepting short-term political appointments, ultimately weakening elected officials’ capacity to fulfill their mandates.