Constitutional Review: Mosojane Speaks
John Mosojane | Monday July 4, 2022 12:30
Change the country’s name
To begin with the name of the country ought to be changed to, or replaced with, a more accommodating name as several people before me have suggested, such as Moses Gare, Gobe Matenge, Knight Maripe and Dr Habaudi Hobona, to mention but a few. Following the famous walk out at the Marlborough House Conference in London, the BPP had occasion to express the same views in a motion by Kenneth Nkhwa in the National Assembly in 1966, but lost because they were unfortunately seriously outnumbered.
This country belongs to us all, the indigenous tribes or nationalities in it, beginning with Basarwa, yet it is inappropriately named Botswana i.e. the land of Batswana. Without any shadow of doubt the name automatically colonises and assimilates, in that all become Batswana although not all are; thus entrenching tribal supremacy and/or bigotry and, by implication, nullifying other cultures and languages, leading to the formation of organisations such as SPIL, Kamanakao, Reteng and several others, demanding their respective languages; and to organisations such as Pitso ya Batswana in opposition to maintain the status quo. Needless to say the name Botswana was intended, by the framers of the Constitution, to maintain the situation as it obtained during the Protectorate days where non-Tswana tribes were generally looked down upon, not only as subjects but also as inferiors. This is unhealthy and we cannot continue like this as a nation. It is time long overdue therefore, for tribal supremacy or bigotry to give way to equality, peace and unity in our diversity under another name.
Botswana not a unitary state of Batswana only We are a diverse or heterogeneous nation of equals, not a unitary state of one tribe or ethnicity, Batswana only, as our Constitution falsely claims. The 1946 population census figures demonstrate this in no uncertain terms (see Anthony Sillery: The Bechuanaland Protectorate). In the order of their settlement in this country the tribes are, roughly: Basarwa, Bakalanga, Bakgalagadi, Bayeyi, Bambukushu, Basubiya, Babirwa, Batswapong and Batswana. These are roughly the main ones, and it will be seen that Batswapong and Batswana were the latest arrivals to this land, in particular, to the Ngwato area (Sillery).
There are a few more other tribes who arrived much later, such as Baherero from Namibia, formerly South West Africa. There are also many more and perhaps smaller tribes in the country, which have as much right as everybody else. It is therefore not fair nor is it right to single out one ethnicity whatever its numbers or size, among so many others, as owning the land in which others have an equal and legitimate interest, and command that these others bow down to the unfairly chosen one. Our Constitution should therefore be amended or rewritten such that it reflects or recognises this clear diversity in our nation.
This is my plea. We need to study the constitutions of our neighbours: South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. None of these constitutions is discriminatory, while ours is deliberately so for the purpose of assimilation, which for more than 55 years since independence does not seem to have made much success. I dare say, in the whole of Africa and indeed the whole world, there’s no constitution like that of Botswana, with a built-in tribalism called nation building. To put it differently, I know of no country in this world, other than Botswana, where forced assimilation is institutionalised as nation building. I know that only migrants may be assimilated or assimilate themselves because of the prevailing circumstances.
Once the above two points are settled, it is my view that everything will fall into place, such as issues of land, chieftainship, membership of the House of Chiefs, etc.
I had come to the conclusion of my submissions but for the following statement by President Masisi, which have provoked me to add more to the above points, as follows:
Receiving letters of credence from the Romanian Ambassador M/s Monica Sitaru in Gaborone on March 31, 2022 Masisi reportedly said: “We are undergoing a Constitution review process very transparent. We want to close the loopholes that people identify in our Constitution; the first Constitution was drawn around conference tables by a select few, in this case it has opened up, and we hope for a useful outcome.” (Daily News April 1, 2022 at Pg 3). With respect, I find myself in measured agreement with these observations by President Masisi.
Although I confess having no direct evidence, there is no question in my mind that the Constitution was drawn by Seretse Khama with his close associates in the Bechuanaland Democratic Party (BDP), such as Quett Masire and Moutlakgola Nwako, or by a lawyer or lawyers on his instructions, alone or with the others. It was then tabled by Khama himself accompanied by Masire at the Conference at Marlborough House in London, and Matante who was one of the participants representing the BPP in Parliament met it there in London for the first time.
Accordingly I agree that “the first constitution was drawn around conference tables by a select few” and has serious “loopholes”, such as I have already pointed out above:
(a) the name of the country,
(b) tribalism as represented by glaring tribal inequalities; and (c) possibly other defects which flow from these two.
At Marlborough Constitutional Conference: Having gone through the document, Matante immediately took the point that the people of Bechuanaland had not been consulted over the provisions of the proposed Constitution and, with respect, he was right. Indeed there had been no consultation at all with the people of Bechuanaland over any provision of the proposed Constitution before the Marlborough House Conference as Masisi has correctly observed. Matante said so partly because there were certain serious assertions in the proposed document, which he could not, with a clear and clean conscience, agree to, without first going back to the people of Bechuanaland as a whole; such as the proposed name for the independent state, the false assertion/claim that there were only “eight principal tribes” in the country.
These were disturbing enough provisions for him, as there were several other tribes in the country, large and small, who were more likely than not, to object to their country being named Botswana after Batswana at independence, let alone that they were not even mentioned in their Constitution which claimed there were only eight principal tribes all of Tswana stock only. He felt too that it was uncalled for to single out in any country’s Constitution any tribe or a group of tribes as the principal tribe(s).
He therefore called for postponement of the Constitutional Conference and for the appointment of a Commission to carry out the exercise of consultations with the people of Bechuanaland over what he perceived as disturbing flaws in the proposed Constitution. There is no question, by any standards, that these were reasonable requests or proposals by the leader of the opposition as he then was. These proposals of his were, however, rejected as delaying tactics by Khama and Masire of the BDP, and Bathoen II representing the House of Chiefs, and who together formed the majority at the talks. Faced with this rebuff and being unable to defend such provisions of the Constitution, he walked out and came back home straight. (Minutes of the Constitutional Conference held at Marlborough House, London, February 1966).
Submissions not new: It will therefore be seen that the submissions herein are not new, having been aired before by none other than that icon, Matante, at the constitutional talks and subsequently by his party in Parliament in 1966, let alone those views of the others I have acknowledged hereinbefore. I was then a student, a member of the Peoples Party since 1963 and quite alive to the affairs of my party and to politics in general.
I also knew that Matante, a tribesman of one of the eight so called “principal tribes”, had started his politics in South Africa where tribalism was taboo, although it is beginning to surface there now; that is how he was able to disagree with his fellow tribesman Khama, who was steeped in traditional tribalism, so was Bathoen II and his Ngwaketse subject Masire.
No doubt, Matante having lived in South Africa for many years, knew that tribalism, as racism, was a bad thing and hated its entrenchment in the Constitution of the new Republic to be.
Assimilation programme intensifies, Tati District never under British Protection nor under Tswana Rule: In concurring with President Masisi I find myself compelled to go further and be a little more explicit especially as I deal with the intended consequences of the Constitution drawn by the “select few” who included Khama. I must say, if for whatsoever reason the submissions herein are not heeded, our Constitution will continue to deny that we are a plural society and maintain that we are a unitary nation of Batswana only, and the others, who may be amongst us, are so negligible in numbers that the programme of assimilation has to continue unimpeded anyway. I do not buy that. We have for many years now watched the implementation of this programme with painful hearts.
It began in 1972, hardly six years following our independence September 30, 1966, when Khama, the architect of our Constitution, by word of mouth, abolished the teaching of the Kalanga language in all primary schools where the language was taught, in the North East (Tati) and the Central Districts. (v) In the Tati District where we had been relatively free of Tswana rule this announcement by Khama came as a shock to our lives and consequently there was a lot of anger and pain. People in the Tati District realised for the first time that independence had brought them no freedom but was taking away their rights, in this particular case, the right to their language. What was that, but recolonisation following British colonisation, as the Tati District was never under British Protection! Yes, I repeat, the Tati District was never under British Protection but a British colony, which was placed within the borders of Bechuanaland and recolonised at independence.
Had the Tati District been under British Protection, the British Protectorate Establishment would not have found it so easy to dispose of it in its entirety to the Tati Concessions Limited, now Tati Company Limited, the way they did in 1911, nearly 26 years after the British had declared this country to be a protected territory. The Tati District was then not part of Bechuanaland.
The story of the British and the Tati District is quite long; and if you are interested you can pick it in a book due to be published and authored by me. (see also Proc. No. 2 of 1911 & Order in Council dd. 4th May, 1911, and the misrepresentations therein). (vi) This order/announcement referred to above, unlawful as it was, became effective from January 1972 and at the same time the Setswana language was declared the only language to be taught throughout the country alongside the English language, notwithstanding that this ran contrary to international norms. This has remained so to this day. Thereafter we have seen an increasing restraint on the speaking and use of all non-Tswana languages in the country, and the Setswana language has been made the official language of the country, in all government offices even at local levels in areas where the language may be predominant other than Setswana. Services at all levels are now requested and obtained in the Setswana language only, i.e. in our hospitals, District Administration and Council offices, Land Boards, Customary Courts and Kgotlas. At the Land Board, Customary Court and Kgotla levels, invariably only Tswana speaking recording secretaries are employed, to compel all non-Tswana speaking people to speak or present their cases or defend themselves, as the case may be, only in Setswana, which a lot of our people don’t know, let alone like, for its imposition on them. This is despite the injustice of it. Clearly all this is what Khama and his fellow constitutional architects intended by calling our country ‘the land of Batswana’ where only Setswana is the language.
Botswana not a unifying name contrary to claims Notwithstanding claims that ‘Botswana’ is a unifying name, on the contrary the name is highly divisive and filled with hidden discrimination. Besides, within it, the name lurks colonisation of the Portuguese and French style called assimilado. How do you unite or bond with someone who is constantly reminding you, through the programme of assimilation, ‘do away with your language, with your culture and identity, for mine,’ and at the same time continues to treat you as a second class citizen. I need only point out that since the year 2008, tribalism has escalated in this country and manifests itself mainly and visibly in the employment of top government employees including the Bench, Parastatals and Heads of Departments. Development, especially infrastructural, has for long been lopsided and tilted towards the South Eastern Central, where most Batswana live. There are terms like ‘Batswana ba sekei’ meaning ‘Batswana proper’ or ‘Batswana tota’, which are now in vogue and, we fear, are being employed silently to discriminate the assimilated and unassimilated alike.
A brief History of the tribes of this land (i) The creation of Tswana Reserves; the birth of Sub-tribes & tribalism: A historical background is necessary for a full appreciation of the submissions outlined above.
In or around 1899, hardly 14 years after this country had been declared a Protectorate by the British, not at the request of any chief or chiefs as falsely claimed elsewhere, Batswana tribes came together through their chiefs and requested the British Protectorate government to divide the country into territories for themselves. So the whole country was professionally surveyed and sub-divided into territories and each tribe got a territory of its own, which was called a Reserve. Hence we had territories such as Bakwena, Bangwaketse, Bangwato, Batawana Reserves, etc., etc.
They were allocated these Reserves, now called Districts, notwithstanding the fact that there were already other tribes of non-Tswana stock settled therein, in many instances centuries before the Tswana tribes arrived in this country or land.
These other tribes were then called “sub-tribes” which meant subjects of the Tswana tribes, notwithstanding their numerical strength over their overloads in certain instances; and that was the beginning of the notion of assimilation (Sillery). Besides, by the ‘Reserves’ so created, Batswana tribes were made to believe that this country belonged to them and to them alone; and this has led to institutionalised tribalism as we see it today, for after all, the non-Tswana tribes were their subjects according to how this country, Bechuanaland (Batsoanaland) as then named, was governed under British Protection. This unfortunate British error ought to have been reversed or corrected at independence but was not; instead, it was carried forward as our independence constitution clearly confirms.
First arrival of Batswana as Bakwena: Batswana first arrived on this land and settled near Dithejwane hills South West of Molepolole, later at Molepolole, fleeing the then apartheid South Africa, as Bakwena in the early 18th century. They found some people there and drove most of them into the Kalahari Desert area.
I guess the rest underwent the process of assimilation. Anthony Sillery does not say who these people were but they were most probably, I guess, Bangologa. Bakwena later split and multiplied, and three more tribes emerged from that split, namely, Bangwaketse, Bangwato, Batawana, in that order. I bet, you may try, if you will, but you won’t find a tribe called Bangwaketse, Bangwato or Batawana in South Africa where Bakwena and the rest of the Tswana tribes listed herein originate from.
The other Tswana tribes such as Barolong, Bakgatla, Balete and Batlokwa arrived much later and at different times. With the exception of Balete and, perhaps, Batlokwa, Batswana have a common ancestor.
This is why Matante of the Bangwato tribe called them cousins, following his walk out of the Marlborough House Constitutional Conference in London. He was condemning the idea of splitting themselves into eight tribes and then calling themselves “the eight principal tribes” in the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that some of them were so small, like Balete, Batlokwa, Bangwato and Batawana; the latter two being far out-numbered by their so called subject tribes to this day. Batlokwa were the latest to arrive and did not get their Reserve until 1933, tiny as they were (Sillery). Incidentally, if I may, Sillery was at some point in time the Resident Commissioner for Bechuanaland and, like Sir Charles Rey, he disapproved of some of the treatment meted out to the non-Tswana tribes; and generally, Basarwa were the worst hit by such treatment.
Basarwa and others more indigenous than Batswana: If I may elaborate further, it is well known that Basarwa were the first to arrive in the whole region of Southern Africa.
Their rock paintings are testimony to that all over Southern Africa including this country. South Africa properly acknowledges that and has appropriately 11 official languages including Serarwa.
No one is looked down upon in that country. Bakalanga, with their ruins, ancient mine diggings and artefacts of multiple kinds sprawling in many parts of this country, are said to have been in this country since or before 1415 AD; that is several centuries before the arrival of Batswana, which is relatively recent. This is according to well documented archaeological research. So are tribes such as Bangologa or Bakgalagadi, Bayeyi, Babirwa, Basubiya, Bambukushu and others, who were here centuries to time immemorial before Batswana. It is therefore totally unimaginable that all these tribes have no natural/human rights under the Constitution of their own country and are to be assimilated.
The system of assimilado is so antiquated that Batswana ought to be ashamed employing it on their fellow beings and citizens at that, in this day and age. They did not conquer us as sometimes claimed; they subdued us in coalition with the mighty British establishment.
Nswazwi challenges the Ngwato Reserve: John Nswazwi and his people tried also to get a territory/reserve of their own by application to the High Commissioner, but were unsuccessful, for no reason other than that they were not of Tswana stock but had been made a sub-tribe of Bangwato, yet Bangwato were far outnumbered by Baka-Nswazwi, let alone by Bakalanga of that District. Nswazwi’s wars with Tshekedi Khama of the Bamangwato tribe were essentially about land and Nswazwi’s refusal to submit to Ngwato rule on the land Bangwato found him when they arrived from Molepolole, having broken away from Bakwena. He was unjustly adjudged insubordinate for taking that stand, and eventually thrown out of his land and country into Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) against his will by the coalition of both forces, i.e. Tshekedi and the British Protectorate Administration.
He was banished together with the frontline of his followers of whom there were many; and their homes were razed to the ground to ensure that they don’t ever come back to their land and country. Nswazwi tried but he had no chance in his request for a territory of his own, for a careful study of the history of this country, now Botswana, shows in very clear terms that only Batswana enjoyed British protection, whereas the non-Tswana tribes were colonised by Batswana under the supervision of the British Authority as represented by the Resident Commissioner. For any doubt, I refer the reader to The Monarch of all I Survey, by Neil Parsons & Michael Crowder. See also Sillery as cited above. I have to add as another revelation, that Tshekedi also wanted the teaching of Kalanga, Nswazwi’s language, to be stopped and replaced with Setswana but Nswazwi and his supporters would not back down (Ross Melczer: The Tati Training Institute and self Determination in the Bukalanga Borderlands); and thanks to the then Education Department, which did not pay attention to Tshekedi’s wild demands. However, in less than 25 years later and after Independence, Khama was able to have his way and stopped the teaching of the language altogether. This was the launch of the programme of assimilation post-independence as I said before.
The Constitution of Botswana a colonizer: Just at a mere glance, it is patently clear that the Independence Constitution, which no doubt, was drawn in complicity with the British Establishment here and in London, confirms in all respects the tribal setup highlighted above.
It means that the country was merely carried forward as was, into independence; that is to say, only Batswana were freed from British protection and became independent and we were not freed from them but remained their subjects; which would mean that the country became a colony named Botswana wherein the non-Tswana tribes remained subjugated to, or colonised to, be assimilated by Batswana tribes, at will. Clearly, the British have much to do with our present plight. I do not think there is any running away from this conspiracy, judging by the way the Constitution has been framed and the practices that have bedevilled us since independence. In short, nothing has changed for the non-Tswana tribes and assimilation has intensified.
This is why I am calling for the country’s name-change and the redrawing of the country’s Constitution to make each tribe independent from another or the other, i.e. no tribe should rule over another.
We must be set free also, and all tribes must be equal.
Assimilation and its effects: Just by way of winding up, I have to say, I know quite a good number of Sarwa and Kalanga families who have become completely extinct as such. No doubt there are many more.
They know where they came from, not where they are going, in that they are completely eclipsed into Ngwato language and culture. They are, in my mind, extinct or their identities have been completely exterminated through forced assimilation. Ordinarily, a handful such as Bangwato does not assimilate the majority, this being possible only under force. There is no question in my mind that this country is on a dangerous path, peaceful though presently it appears to be. People are increasingly resisting assimilation as they get more and more learned about their own history and the unfair history of this country under British Protection.
More specifically they are increasingly becoming aware that bua Setswana monna is oppressive, especially where they can express themselves best in their own language in their linguistic area of domination. I believe the day is not too far off when they will be openly defiant, and that will be the beginning of trouble. This comes through education, which by the way is everywhere, and not necessarily formal. Finally, it is not often appreciated that assimilation is tribalism of a dangerous type. He who assimilates thinks highly of himself and has little respect for you and what you are. Assimilation lulls you into the belief that you are being equalised, yet you are being destroyed slowly into extinction, but discrimination goes on unabated nonetheless as the assimilated are not necessarily equals as has been shown in numerous instances. Accordingly, assimilation ought to stop forthwith; and only those under threat can stop it.
Note: In these submissions, ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’ refer to all the non-Tswana ethnicities in this country.
This order/announcement referred to above, unlawful as it was, became effective from January of 1972 and at the same time the Setswana language was declared the only language to be taught throughout the country alongside the English language, notwithstanding that this ran contrary to international norms. This has remained so to this day.
Thereafter we have seen an increasing restraint on the speaking and use of all non-Tswana languages in the country, and the Setswana language has been made the official language of the country, in all Government offices even at local levels in areas where the language may be predominantly other than Setswana. Services at all levels are now requested and obtained in the Setswana language only, i.e. in our hospitals, District Administration and Council Offices, Land Boards, Customary Courts and Kgotlas. At the Land Board, Customary Court and Kgotla levels, invariably only Tswana speaking recording secretaries are employed, to compel all non-Tswana speaking people to speak or present their cases or defend themselves, as the case may be, only in Setswana, which a lot of our people don’t know, let alone like, for its imposition on them. This is despite the injustice of it. Clearly all this is what Seretse Khama and his fellow constitutional architects intended by calling our country ‘the land of Batswana’ where only Setswana is the language.
Botswana not a unifying name contrary to claims Notwithstanding claims that ‘Botswana’ is a unifying name, on the contrary the name is highly divisive and filled with hidden discrimination. Besides, within it the name lurks colonization of the Portuguese and French style called assimilado. How do you unite or bond with someone who is constantly reminding you, through the programme of assimilation, ‘do away with your language, with your culture and identity, for mine,’ and at the same time continues to treat you as a second class citizen. I need only point out that since the year 2008 tribalism has escalated in this country and manifests itself mainly and visibly in the employment of top Government employees including the Bench, Parastatals and Heads of Departments. Development, especially infrastructural, has for long been lopsided and tilted towards the South Eastern Central, where most Batswana live. There are terms like ‘Batswana ba sekei’ meaning ‘Batswana proper’ or ‘Batswana tota’, which are now in vogue and, we fear, are being employed silently to discriminate the assimilated and unassimilated alike.
A brief History of the tribes of this Land
The creation of Tswana Reserves; the birth of Sub-tribes & tribalism: A historical background is necessary for a full appreciation of the submissions outlined above. In or around 1899, hardly 14 years after this country had been declared a Protectorate by the British, not at the request of any chief or chiefs as falsely claimed elsewhere, Batswana tribes came together through their chiefs and requested the British Protectorate Government to divide the country into territories for themselves.
So, the whole country was professionally surveyed and sub-divided into territories and each tribe got a territory of its own, which was called a Reserve.
Hence, we had territories such as Bakwena, Bangwaketse, Bangwato, Batawana Reserves, etc., etc. They were allocated these Reserves, now called Districts, notwithstanding the fact that there were already other tribes of non-Tswana stock settled therein, in many instances centuries before the Tswana tribes arrived in this country or land. These other tribes were then called “sub-tribes” which meant subjects of the Tswana tribes, notwithstanding their numerical strength over their overloads in certain instances; and that was the beginning of the notion of assimilation (Anthony Sillery). Besides, by the ‘Reserves’ so created Batswana tribes were made to believe that this country belonged to them and to them alone; and this has led to institutionalised tribalism as we see it today, for after all, the non-Tswana tribes were their subjects according to how this country, Bechuanaland (Batsoanaland) as then named, was governed under British Protection. This unfortunate British error ought to have been reversed or corrected at independence but was not; instead, it was carried forward as our independence constitution clearly confirms.
First arrival of Batswana as Bakwena: Batswana first arrived on this land and settled near Dithejwane hills South West of Molepolole, later at Molepolole, fleeing the then apartheid South Africa, as Bakwena in the early 18th century. They found some people there and drove most of them into the Kalahari Desert area. I guess the rest underwent the process of assimilation. Anthony Sillery does not say who these people were but they were most probably, I guess, Bangologa.
Bakwena later split and multiplied, and three more tribes emerged from that split, namely, Bangwaketse, Bangwato, Batawana, in that order. I bet, you may try, if you will, but you won’t find a tribe called Bangwaketse, Bangwato or Batawana in South Africa where Bakwena and the rest of the Tswana tribes listed herein originate from. The other Tswana tribes such as Barolong, Bakgatla, Balete and Batlokwa arrived much later and at different times. With the exception of Balete and, perhaps, Batlokwa, Batswana have a common ancestor. This is why PG Matante of the Bangwato tribe called them cousins, following his walk out of the Marlborough House Constitutional Conference in London.
He was condemning the idea of splitting themselves into 8 tribes and then calling themselves “the 8 principal tribes” in the constitution, notwithstanding the fact that some of them were so small, like Balete, Batlokwa, Bangwato and Batawana; the latter two being far out-numbered by their so-called subject tribes to this day. Batlokwa were the latest to arrive and did not get their Reserve until 1933, tiny as they were (Anthony Sillery).
Incidentally, if I may, Anthony Sillery was at some point in time the Resident Commissioner for Bechuanaland and, like Sir Charles Rey, he disapproved of some of the treatment meted out to the non-Tswana tribes; and generally, Basarwa were the worst hit by such treatment.
Basarwa and others more indigenous than Batswana: If I may elaborate further, it is well known that Basarwa were the first to arrive in the whole region of Southern Africa.
Their rock paintings are testimony to that all over Southern Africa including this country. South Africa properly acknowledges that and has appropriately 11 official languages including Serarwa. No one is looked down upon in that country. Bakalanga, with their ruins, ancient mine diggings and artefacts of multiple kinds sprawling in many parts of this country, are said to have been in this country since or before 1415 AD; that is several centuries before the arrival of Batswana which is relatively recent.
This is according to well documented archaeological research. So are tribes such as Bangologa or Bakgalagadi, Bayeyi, Babirwa, Basubiya, Bambukushu and others, who were here centuries to time immemorial before Batswana. It is therefore totally unimaginable that all these tribes have no natural/human rights under the constitution of their own country and are to be assimilated. The system of assimilado is so antiquated that Batswana ought to be ashamed employing it on their fellow beings and citizens at that, in this day and age. They did not conquer us as sometimes claimed; they subdued us in coalition with the mighty British establishment.
Nswazwi challenges the Ngwato Reserve: John Nswazwi and his people tried also to get a territory/reserve of their own by application to the High Commissioner, but were unsuccessful, for no reason other than that they were not of Tswana stock but had been made a sub-tribe of Bangwato, yet Bangwato were far outnumbered by Baka-Nswazwi, let alone by Bakalanga of that District. John Nswazwi’s wars with Tshekedi Khama of the Bamangwato tribe were essentially about land and Nswazwi’s refusal to submit to Ngwato rule on the land Bangwato found him when they arrived from Molepolole, having broken away from Bakwena. He was unjustly adjudged insubordinate for taking that stand, and eventually thrown out of his land and country into Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) against his will by the coalition of both forces, i.e. Tshekedi and the British Protectorate Administration.
He was banished together with the frontline of his followers of whom there were many; and their homes were razed to the ground to ensure that they don’t ever come back to their land and country. Nswazwi tried but he had no chance in his request for a territory of his own, for a careful study of the history of this country, now Botswana, shows in very clear terms that only Batswana enjoyed British protection, whereas the non-Tswana tribes were colonized by Batswana under the supervision of the British Authority as represented by the Resident Commissioner.
For any doubt, I refer the reader to The Monarch of all I Survey, by Neil Parsons & Michael Crowder. See also Anthony Sillery as cited above. I have to add as another revelation, that Tshekedi also wanted the teaching of Kalanga, Nswazwi’s language, to be stopped and replaced with Setswana but Nswazwi and his supporters would not back down (Ross Melczer: The Tati Training Institute and self Determination in the Bukalanga Borderlands); and thanks to the then Education Department which did not pay attention to Tshekedi’s wild demands.
However, in less than 25 years later and after Independence Seretse Khama was able to have his way and stopped the teaching of the language altogether. This was the launch of the programme of assimilation post-independence as I said before.
The constitution of Botswana a colonizer: Just at a mere glance, it is patently clear that the Independence Constitution, which no doubt, was drawn in complicity with the British Establishment here and in London, confirms in all respects the tribal setup highlighted above.
*JOHN MOSOJANE is a retired High Court Judge