Bakalanga call for Bukalanga Tribal Territory
Tendekani E Malebeswa | Monday May 27, 2024 09:13
1). Honourable Speaker, we are thankful for being given this opportunity to address this august Assembly as Bakalanga for a fair constitutional dispensation.
2). We are here today because when an announcement was made in 2019 that there would be a comprehensive constitutional review, we started engaging to crystallise what we wanted to achieve out of this exercise. Our grievances have always been there, but we have always held out hoping that something like this would come along. So, we had to grasp this with both hands.
3). When the government started to put in place the blocks for a Constitutional Review Commission in 2021, we also began to talk to our communities during the Christmas holidays. For us this was a critically important process, which we saw as an opportunity for the creation of a constitutional dispensation that reflects this country as we now understand it in the 21st century. It was announced as a comprehensive constitutional review process, and being the first since 1966, we have no idea when the next one will take place.
4). Honourable Speaker, just permit me to step back into the arc of history. Following the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, which partitioned Africa among the major colonial powers, General Warren arrived here in early 1885 to put together the first pieces for the establishment of Bechuanaland on behalf of colonial Britain. As the name Bechuanaland suggests, it was understood that this was the land of the Bechuana, now Batswana.
5). The colonialists were principally interested in conquer or usurp, control and rule, but such rule had to take place in the cheapest way possible. Lord Frederick Lugard had designed the policy of indirect rule in West Africa, and it was adopted for use here, as it was effective, efficient and cheap to administer. The central plank of this policy is that you identify a dominant chief who then controls all the other natives, while only the chief himself reports to the colonial power. The chief was given a warrant to use whatever measures to maintain control. 6. General Warren therefore identified the dominant southern Tswana chiefs and brought them together, and they were to be his only point of interaction with local populations. Using their policy of indirect rule, the colonialists treated everyone who was non-Tswana as a minor or subject tribe.
7). However, the story was different in the north. When the Bechuanaland Protectorate was proclaimed in 1885 it went only up to the 22nd degrees parallel south, that is, up to the Motloutse River.
8). Bukalanga started from the Motloutse River, and thus was not part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate when it was proclaimed in 1885. Instead, Bukalanga was under the control of King Lobengula of Matebeleland.
9). However, following the defeat of Lobengula by the combined forces of the British colonial Government, the British South Africa Company (BSAC) and Chief Khama in 1893 (using the Pioneer Column), Bukalanga came under the control of the BSAC. During the visit of the three chiefs to London in 1895, the British colonial government annexed that part of Bukalanga outside Rhodesia (or southern Rhodesia) from the BSAC and gave it to Chief Khama as a reward for his assistance in defeating Lobengula. This also resulted in the creation of the Tati District, which is now known as the North East District. Prior to this annexation, Bukalanga had never been under the rule or control of any Tswana chief. The irony for Bakalanga is that it is during this trip, which they are supposed to celebrate as giving protection to the Bechuanaland Protectorate, that they were handed over to Chief Khama, which started their subjugation until today.
10). Through the March 1899 Proclamation establishing Native Reserves, Bukalanga was officially and legally incorporated into the Bechuanaland Protectorate, principally as part of the Bamangwato Tribal Territory. So, Bukalanga legally came into the Protectorate after fourteen years of colonial rule, that is, in 1899, through annexation by proclamation.
11). This state of affairs was confirmed and ratified by the 1965 Independence Constitution, and that is what pertains today. These are the same 1899 Proclamation and the 1965 Marlborough House Constitution that Kgosi Kgafela always riles against. Similarly, we are unhappy about both of them, but for different reasons, hence we arrive at different suggested solutions. Bukalanga was by law, the 1899 Proclamation, forced to become a part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate. This continued into the creation of this Republic. Bakalanga were never consulted. Everything was simply imposed on them.
12. Simply put, the 1965 Constitution codified a caste system in Botswana, where you have eight (8) Tswana tribes being the only ones recognised and having permanent seats in the Ntlo ya Dikgosi, while the second or third tier citizens go in and out through a revolving door, just like what happens with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. 13. This caste system in Botswana is enabled mainly by the Tribal Territories Act, the Bogosi Act and Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Constitution.
14). As Bakalanga, we have accepted that such a caste system is government policy, as it is entrenched in a Constitution that forms the foundation of this country, as well as in other laws, but particularly the Tribal Territories Act. Thus, the Constitution itself, which is supposed to protect our fundamental rights, is the one that categorises us as second class citizens. These laws are enforced by the State, with formidable coercive powers and other resources at its disposal. And at the epicentre of our Constitution sits an undemocratic institution, the Ntlo ya Dikgosi, whose oxygen is supplied by an equally iniquitous and anachronistic piece of legislation known as the Tribal Territories Act.
15). In a speech in 2018, a former President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee said: 16). “Our founding fathers pulled together India’s remarkable diversity to build national unity, which has brought us so far. The Constitution represented a second liberation, this time from the stranglehold of traditional inequity in gender, caste, community, along with other fetters that had chained us for too long. The enduring democratic institutions they established have given us the gift of continuity on the path of progress. India today is a rising power, a country fast emerging as a global leader in science, technology, innovation and start-ups, and whose economic success is the envy of the world. “From within the spacious provisions of our Constitution, India has grown into a beautiful, vibrant, and sometimes noisy democracy. For us, the democracy is not a gift, but the fundamental right of every citizen; for those in power, democracy is a sacred trust. Those who violate this trust commit sacrilege against the nation.” As a sovereign Republic with no pretensions to monarchical rule, we need to break free from the shackles of colonial instruments. As Bakalanga, we saw the Constitutional Review exercise as offering us as a country a window for a fresh start as a true, united Republic of equal citizens, drawing from the lessons of the past 50+ odd years. 17). In anticipation of this watershed moment we continued, in early 2022, to consult our Chiefs and communities, both in the North East District and on the west of the Shashe River. We met with our Chiefs in the North East District in early April 2022 in Masunga, and in May 2022 we met some of our Chiefs on that part of Bukalanga on the west of the Shashe River in Sebina. We met with our communities in Nkange, Nshakazhogwe, Masunga and Mulambakwena. There were also engagements through various other platforms. In the end, it was agreed that we should submit only the following two points to the Constitutional Review Commission: (a) The word “language” should be inserted into the Constitution, particularly at Sections 3 and 15, to ensure that no-one can be discriminated against on the basis of their language. This is to provide a justiciable right, so that if you are discriminated against on the basis of your language you can go to court. A survey of constitutions of countries in the region with multi-ethnic populations, as well as international conventions, invariably contain “language” as a ground for non-discrimination. We looked at the constitutions of Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia; as well as the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples Rights of 1986, the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and, lastly, the American Convention on Human Rights. This right should be distinguished from the right to be taught in your mother tongue. You can be taught or instructed in your mother tongue in a classroom, and once you step outside you are discriminated against on the basis of your language. Thus, this amendment is to ensure that you can assert your right to speak your language anywhere freely; (b) The second point is that Bukalanga should be declared Bukalanga Tribal Territory, established under the Tribal Territories Act and made up of the North East District and those parts of Bukalanga that were annexed into the Bamangwato Tribal Territory in 1895. Basically, this is a recreation of Bukalanga from the Motloutse River up to Pandamatenga, and incorporating the North East District just as it was before 1895. As indicated above, this is not a position that was taken lightly. It involved very serious discussions. 18). However, given that the current eight tribal territories are here to stay and continue to be strengthened since Botswana was founded upon bogosi, Bakalanga now feel that they should also rightly demand what is rightfully theirs. Bakalanga have observed, mostly in silence, as superficial changes have been made to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Constitution. There has never been any attempt whatsoever to deal with the Tribal Territories Act. Yet it is the elephant in the room. When amendments were made to the Bogosi Act to sweet talk and sugar coat Sub-Chiefs by calling them Dikgosi (a number of whom are Bakalanga), the Dikgosi of the eight Tswana tribes started referring to themselves unofficially as dikgosikgolo - just to make sure that it sinks in that there is difference and separateness, and the caste and rank systems are maintained. During the tour of the Constitutional Review Commission, some of the chiefs from the big eight suggested that the dikgosi should be made the fourth arm of government. And this can only benefit them because everyone else is a minor role player. Amongst others, the Bakalanga chiefs in the Bamangwato Tribal Territory cannot wear a skin of any type (whether nkwe or lengau or any animal). This is because bamo lefatsheng la kgosi e nngwe. Instead, the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development appoints these chiefs as moemela kgosi, or, if they are fortunate, moemela kgosi yo mogolwane. Already in terms of their appointment, they are not chiefs, but mere representatives. They have no independence and security of tenure, as any slight mis-step may result in their being removed by those competent authorities in a far away village. These far away competent authorities, for their own selfish reasons, may refuse to have a true, legitimate Chief to be appointed, and when this happens, nothing can be done. That is the end of story. And we are talking about Bakalanga Chiefs from lineages of rich pedigree and heritage. When we met the Chiefs in the North East District in Masunga, Kgosi Moipolai of Matsiloje, where they are Barolong, told us a story of a call he received just before his investiture from the Barolong Kgosi in Goodhope. The Barolong Kgosi in Goodhope asked Kgosi Moipolai, “ga o na go apara ga kere?” Since these restrictions about gore lefatshe ke la ga mang do not exist in the North East District, Kgosi Moipolai was draped with a leopard skin. But the message was very clear. Similar stories are there in the southern part of the country as well. As Bakalanga, we have had a knee on our neck since 1895. It is about time it is removed. 19. Given all these centuries’ indignities, which are many, Bakalanga are now demanding their own Tribal Territory where they can freely follow their own traditions and customs. A Tribal Territory should not be conflated with the recent establishment of district councils. These are entirely different things. Tribal territories are about land mass and how you control it through your Chiefs, your personal attachment to the land and your personal relationship with the soil and your ancestors, some of whom died defending it, your history and the blood that was spilt defending it over centuries. It gives someone identity, respect, dignity and a sense of belonging, where you can identify with your own true chief, customs and traditions. Tribal territories are about belonging, power, stature, prestige and influence.
20).The above points, particularly the one on the Bukalanga Tribal Territory, were submitted very clearly when the Constitutional Review Commission addressed kgotla meetings in Bukalanga, including at Nata, Maitengwe, Tutume, Sebina, Masunga, Ramokgwebana, Tshesebe, and Mathangwane. 21). However, the report of the Constitutional Review Commission did not mention these points. Our written submission to the Commission was hand-delivered to the Commission offices at the University of Botswana campus opposite the Botswana Civil Service College. The submission could not be sent by post or emailed as it had big attachments. These attachments were A3 size attachments, including a South African map of 1877, a War Map of the Transvaal of 1881, and a South African map of July 1885. These maps showed the settlement of Bakalanga around the Motloutse River up to Palapye. 22). In later communication with the head of the Commission’s Secretariat, she confirmed that our submission had been received, and that it was thorough. We later discovered that there was a chance to make oral submissions, but we could not get a slot. We comforted ourselves with the fact that our submission had been received, and that it was thorough. But this also showed that the Commission was in a rush. 23). When the report of the Commission was released, it did not contain anything that we had submitted on. Worst of all, we were not even acknowledged amongst those who had made submissions. 24). In 2023 we started trying to engage the relevant authorities but they said that as the Commission’s report did not include our matters there was nothing they could do. Since there was nothing on our submissions in the report, including what our communities had submitted during kgotla meetings, it meant that the draft White Paper could not contain what we had submitted, and this also infected the Constitution Amendment Bill (No. 4 of 2024). However, listening to BOCONGO on Friday, we fared a little bit better than them, as we did get a response from one of the ministers. But it is just cold comfort. 25). But we owe our gratitude to the Vice President, who advised us to approach the Speaker of the National Assembly. Honourable Speaker, we thank you and your team. We want to thank profusely the Deputy Speaker and Member of Parliament for Tonota, Honourable Pono Moatlhodi, and Member of Parliament for Nkange, Honourable Dr Nevah Tshabang, who made time to meet with us and patiently listen to us. We thank you Rragwe Nkamo and Niswimbo.
26). The report of the Constitutional Review Commission itself in our view dealt with generalities, and fancy name changes, just like the suggested amendments to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Constitution, which focus on head-counts. We want deliberate, intentional and structural change. 27). During my time I had the privilege of serving as secretary to three Presidential Commissions of Inquiry, as well as being secretary to the Joint Committee of Technical Experts on the Boundary Dispute between Botswana and Namibia Concerning the Kasikili/Sedudu Island. There was always meticulous attention to detail to ensure that everything was properly captured, and all those who had participated were acknowledged, and importantly, their names were properly written and spelt. This is because such events are of immense historical significance and posterity. But this Constitutional Review Commission was unique. 28). One of the Commissions on which I served made the recommendation that any Motswana should be able to get a piece of land anywhere in the country. The anticipation was that we would see a loosening of tribal identity. However, as we have already pointed out, thirty years later, the instruments of tribal identity are being strengthened. Unless there is a serious effort to dismantle the Tribal Territories Act, tribal neutrality can never be achieved. Thus, since there is no intention of doing away with the Tribal Territories Act, we as Bakalanga are now demanding that we should get back our land, and a Bukalanga Tribal Territory be established. As the English saying goes, “you skirt around a problem and damn the consequences.” 29). Slavery in the United States of America is considered to have started in 1619. President Abraham Lincoln abolished it in 1862. He did not say that this was inconvenient history that he did not have to deal with. President Lincoln’s abhorrence of slavery was because he saw it as an affront to humanity, dignity and fundamental human values. In America, slavery and discrimination were based on skin colour. In Botswana, discrimination is based on language – which makes you subject to someone. In other words, sub-human, and the other person superior. 30). Colonialism in South Africa started in 1652 as a vicious, violent and oppressive system. Natives did not raise their hands in surrender. They confronted it, and eventually they prevailed. 31). With this Constitutional Review Exercise, the Republic of Botswana needs to rise above cosmetic changes and cross its own Rubicon, and free itself of a Constitution that celebrates colonial oppression and subjugation, and glorifies colonial injustices and tribal superiority.
32). Even though our mandate is very narrow, having followed the discussions of the Governance Committee on Friday, we can just stray a little. Our principals will forgive us. We would like to offer our views on Specially Elected Members of Parliament. Our understanding is that the special election of Members of Parliament was allowed at independence due to a shortage of skills, and this was to augment this as the first cohort of Members of Parliament lacked in certain respects. This mechanism could therefore allow skills from groups such as white people to be brought in, as on their own it would have been difficult to win constituencies. But like everything else that involves human beings, that has evolved. If now the noble aim is to bring in women, the youth and those with disabilities, our view is that, in order to satisfy all interested parties, Specially Elected Members of Parliament should be chosen using a formula that allows each party to nominate such Members on the basis of their percentage share of their popular vote. This would then work on a graduated basis, and the concerned groups would be able to enter Parliament under each party relative to its popular vote. This is as far as we can stray from our mandate. 33). In conclusion, Honourable Speaker, we are before this august Assembly today to ask that as you debate the Constitution Amendment Bill, kindly note that: (a) the word “language” should be inserted into sections 3 and 15 of the Constitution, and any other consequential changes be made; (b) a Bukalanga Tribal Territory should be established using the pre-1895 Bukalanga boundaries, from the Motloutse River up to Pandamatenga, and including the North East District. Bakalanga themselves will decide who their chief will be. This way, honour, dignity, pride and respect (including self-respect and identity) can be restored to them; (c) We therefore, cannot support the suggested amendments to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Constitution contained in the Constitution Amendment Bill, as they are very superficial and cosmetic; (d) We cannot continue to allow instruments that were put in place by British colonialists for their own self-interests in the 19th century, yet built on a false edifice, to continue controlling our lives in the 21st century. 34). We would like to believe that some of you did not know the history we have narrated above. Indeed, that would be perfectly understandable if you thought it was fiction. This is because this history is not part of our school curriculum. It is not taught in our schools. But it is our true history: the history of the Mambo, Monomotapa, the Butua State, Mwali, Njelele, the Arabs, the Portuguese, the Domboshaba Ruins, the Khami Ruins, the Great Zimbabwe Ruins, Mapungubwe, Danangombe, Zwangendaba, Nyamazana the Antelope, to mention but a few. 35). The founding President of this Republic said in 1970: “We were taught, sometimes in a very positive way, to despise ourselves and our ways of life. We were made to believe that we had no past to speak of, no history to boast of. The past, so far as we were concerned, was just a blank and nothing more... It should now be our intention to try and retrieve what we can of our past. We should write our own history books, to prove that we did have a past, and that it was a past that was just as worth writing and learning about as any other. We must do this for the simple reason that a nation without a past is a lost nation, and a people without a past are a people without a soul.” 36). As Bakalanga, we demand our full constitutional and fundamental human rights.
We thank you Honourable Speaker and Honourable Members for giving us this opportunity, and for your kind attention.
*TENDEKANI E MALEBESWA is a member of the Bakalanga for a fair constitutional dispensation