Bukalanga submission to the Presidential Commission

Introduction

Section 1 of the Constitution of Botswana proclaims Botswana a Republic. However, a critical analysis reveals that the foundation for the Republic is the Tribal Territories Act1, which in turn influenced key institutions as well as important pieces of legislation.

The groundwork for the constitutional negotiations involved the Legislative Council (LEGCO), which itself built on the work that had earlier been done by the Native Advisory Council, the African Advisory Council, and the Joint Advisory Council. Due to the fact that native reserves (the predecessor to the Tribal Territories), and the subsequent Tribal Territories, only recognised Tswana tribes and their chiefs meant that non-Tswana tribes were meaningfully excluded from the pre-Republic institutions, the constitutional negotiations themselves, as well as the resultant Republic institutions. This is most vivid in the House of Chiefs (now Ntlo ya Dikgosi), which is mandated by Sections 77, 79, and 79 of the Constitution, the Tribal Territories Act, and the Bogosi Act2. All these legislative instruments recognised, and continue to recognise, only eight Tswana tribes. This is a continuation of the colonial era system of indirect rule for the administrative convenience of tax collection, through which only eight chiefs of Tswana stock were recognised, and are still recognised in independent Botswana. Since Setswana was a common language of the eight tribes, it was clearly unnecessary to include “language” as a basis for discrimination in the Constitution as English had already been accorded its own status as an official language.

This submission will therefore be structured as follows: a short background on the existence of the Bukalanga nation; key historical events and their effect on Bukalanga (1884-1885 Berlin Conference and establishment of the 1885 Bechuanaland Protectorate); 1893 defeat of King Lobengula; 1895 London trip by the three Chiefs; the 1899 Proclamation on Native Reserves; language; words of wisdom from historical figures; and conclusion.

Existence of Bukalangal The existence of Bukalanga as a single nation state has been recorded since the 1500s. But its origins can be traced back to around 900 AD3. It was ruled by successive mambos (kings), but steadily weakened due to aggressive attacks by other groups. This coincided with the colonial invasion, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was the arrival of the Ndebele around 1839.

The Ndebele took over the whole of Bukalanga, along all its pre-existing boundaries. This inheritance of Bukalanga boundaries by the successive Ndebele kingdoms resulted in these being crystalised in treaties they entered into with the colonial, and other powers. Essentially, the southern and south western boundaries stretched up to the Motloutse River, and then moved up through the Makgadikgadi Pans, and then went up to Pandamatenga, and eventually ended at the Zambezi River, in the present day Hwange area. Colonial authorities wrote “Motloutse” as “Macloutsie”.

Mauch, who lived in Bukalanga for nine months between September 1871 and May 1872 wrote about Bakalanga:

“As far as their history is concerned, it remains shrouded in the deepest darkness. As they are ignorant of the informing of posterity, either by writing or by carving in stone, of any historical happenings, one experiences the greatest difficulty in separating truth from myth and the fictitious in their changing traditions. Only from the first decades of the 19th Century does any certainty in regard to their history appear. In the following I shall try to relate what I could find out in this aspect.

About 300 years ago they must have been a powerful people, for their mambo (kings) ruled over the whole country between the two rivers, Limpopo and Zambezi. In fact they extracted tribute from places, which are well beyond these borders. However, such a powerful empire could not last forever, as raiding invasions by other people, the Barotse or Balosse, frequently took place from the north west. To those as well as to the Portuguese they ceded lands, while the Basuto to the south of the Limpopo recognised the growing weakness of their lords and liberated themselves from vassaldom without incurring punishment.”4 (see Attachments “A” and “B”).

The combination of European settler colonialism and the rise of the Ndebele kingdom almost decimated Bukalanga. However, as has already been pointed out, the Ndebele maintained the Bukalanga boundaries, and hence they are known up to the present day.

The Ndebele destroyed most of the Bakalanga chieftainships, in order to consolidate their own power. This was further aided by the British policy of indirect rule, whereby Bakalanga, just as in Bechuanaland in later years, were subjugated and pushed to the bottom of the ladder.

1884-1885 Berlin Conference And Establishment of 1885

Protectoratel The British imposed a protectorate on what came to be known as Bechuanaland in January 1885 through Order-in-Council of January 27, 1885. It was a purely unilateral act, which placed the Kalahari south of the 22nd parallel under the British control. This declaration was only made public in March 1885 during the Berlin Conference, which carved up Africa to various European colonial interests. The British followed this up with another proclamation - Proclamation No. 1 B.B. 1885 of September 30, 1885 - which covered the northern part and thus effectively created the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

What is significant, and critical for this submission, is that the northern boundary for the Bechuanaland Protectorate was established as the twenty-second parallel of the south latitude. The significance in this is that the 22nd parallel is around the Motloutse River, which was the southern-most boundary of the Ndebele Kingdom, and by extension, Bukalanga.

The British knew this, and did not want to start a conflict with King Lobengula of the Ndebele. The Ndebele had inherited Bukalanga boundaries as they were from the time of the Mambo. Therefore, by September 30, 1885 Proclamation, Bukalanga was not part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate (see Attachments “C”, “D” and “E”). Even though the Ndebele had inherited Bukalanga, Bakalanga were still in charge of their own affairs. Professor Msindo has written that:

“The allegiance of most Kalanga chiefs to Lobengula was tenuous and questionable. For this reason, although Lobengula thought he had demoted Kalanga chiefs into headmen and placed Ndebele garrisons close to their chiefdoms to check them, and to enforce their payment of tribute, and to enforce Ndebele language and culture among them, he never won that loyalty and voluntary submission of those people in his kingdom. Instead, he depended on enforcing discipline by raiding and attacking those Kalanga chiefs who disobeyed, insulted, or ill-treated his regimental leaders. Lobengula’s draconian measures were not always successful as they instead strengthened the resolve to develop a sense of Kalanganess.”5

Thus, although the Ndebele were their ultimate rulers, Bakalanga retained their identity, and more importantly, territorial and land boundaries. One of these is the Motloutse River as the southern boundary of Bukalanga, which was confirmed by the British through Proclamation No. 1 B.B. 1885 of September 3, 1885. Barry Morton shows that Bakalanga (except a small number which, fearing the Ndebele, had found refuge in Shoshong during Sekgoma’s reign) were not part of the Tswana population estimates before 1904.6 This is simply because Bakalanga were part of the Ndebele Kingdom, with their own land and clearly defined boundaries.

In the land of Gold, Diamonds and Ivory, written in the 1870s, it is recorded that:

“The Matabele country at present extends from the Macloutsie river on the south to within about forty miles of the Zambezi in the north, and from the Nata River and the Makari-kari in the west to the dominions of lngongonyon, the son of Umzila, in the east, where are situated the ancient ruins described in the previous chapter.”

The southern, southwestern and northwestern boundaries of the Ndebele kingdom were co-terminus with those of Bukalanga.

In a diplomatic dispatch of the 2nd April 1888, Senor de Carvalho of the Portuguese Consulate wrote a diplomatic note to the British High Commissioner for South Africa, Hercules Robinson, protesting Ndebele rule of the Mashona. It, however, also acknowledged that Bukalanga was under the Ndebele King, which is a correct recording of history, and which the British also recognised. The diplomatic note read in part:

“In the Government Gazette Extraordinary of the 25th instant (25th April) is published a Treaty entered into between Lobengula, ruler of the Amatabele, and the Assistant Commissioner, J.S. Moffat, and duly approved and ratified by your Excellency as Her Majesty’s High Commissioner for South Africa. In this Treaty the tribes of Mashonaland and MaKalaka are acknowledged as tributaries to the said Lobengula, ruler of the Amatabeles.” (Further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Bechuanaland and Adjacent Territories, August 1888). On May 23rd 1888 the British informed the Portuguese that they had entered into a treaty with King Mzilikazi (Lobengula’s father) on the 23rd March 1836, and there had been no protest from the Portuguese. Mzilikazi’s envoy, Mncumbathe, signed a treaty of friendship with Governor d’Urban in Cape Town in March 1836.

Importantly, the above diplomatic exchange took place in 1888 (three (years after the Bechuanaland Protectorate was proclaimed). It confirmed that Bukalanga was under the Ndebele Kingdom, and not a part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The long and short of it is that Bukalanga was not part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate at its inception.

However, from the time of the imposition of the Bechuanaland Protectorate in 1885, some British colonial officials, including Hercules Robinson, had agitated for annexation of some of the territory under Lobengula, which essentially was Bukalanga, and for its incorporation into the Bechuanaland Protectorate. This made Lobengula very angry, as this included Bukalanga territory up to the Zambezi River. The intentions of the British colonial officials coincided with Khama’s territorial expansion claims. It could also simply be that these latter two parties were acting in concert.

“But the most sustained pressure came from the High Commissioner. At this stage (Sir Hercules) Robinson’s interest was not in Matabeleland/Mashonaland but rather in pushing rapidly to the Zambezi, which could be achieved by adding to the Bechuanaland Protectorate the balance of the territory claimed by Khama. As has been seen, such a forward policy was not welcome to the Colonial Office. Although Robinson’s 1885 proposal was submitted to Cabinet, no decision eventuated. Lobengula, whose counterclaim covered the whole of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, disputed Khama’s territorial claims and Britain had no desire to become embroiled in the local dispute. Moreover, Salisbury was concerned lest a takeover of northern Bechuanaland lead to a clash with the Germans who were expanding in the direction of Lake Ngami.”8 A number of points come out of the above passage: First, the area under discussion is Bukalanga, and it was under the jurisdiction of Lobengula; Second, the British colonial officials in southern Africa wanted access to the Zambezi River, and therefore wanted to expand the Bechuanaland Protectorate beyond the 22nd parallel of south latitude, even if it meant a confrontation with Lobengula;

Third, prior to 1885 Khama had not claimed Bukalanga as he knew that it was under Lobengula. At this point Khama had never had control over Bukalanga (either by way of conquest or protection). As a matter of fact, it is Bakalanga who defeated Bangwato in 1826, in a battle during which the Ngwato leader - Chief Kgari - was killed (see footnote 7)). However, Khama started making claims on the back of the position of the British colonial officials. Khama had always coveted Bukalanga. But even during the proclamation of the Bechuanaland Protectorate in 1885, Khama’s claim went up to the Motloutse River only.

The British Colonial Office in London did not want a confrontation with Lobengula over the annexation of Bukalanga.

Reference to the territory as not being part of Matebeleland is a misstatement as it was already a part of the Ndebele kingdom.

In 1890, Sir Henry Loch (the successor to Robinson) succeeded, on paper at least, to have the Protectorate extended towards the Zambezi River.

D. 1893 DEFEAT OF LOBENGULA; 1895 LONDON TRIP AND THE 1899 PROCLAMATION OF NATIVE RESERVES

By 1893 white settlers were Lobengula’s neighbours, in an area governed by the British South Africa Company (BSAC or BSAco). In October 1893, a war started between Lobengula’s Ndebele and the BSAC. In November 1893 the Ndebele were defeated, and Lobengula was ousted.

The BSAC took over all the territory that had been under the control of Lobengula, including the whole of Bukalanga. In Bukalanga the BSAC was particularly interested in the Tati area, due to the company’s commercial interests. The Tati area, or Tati Concessions, later became the Tati District, which is now the North-East District. This area had been a mining area since 1870, when Lobengula granted the Tati Concession to the London and Limpopo Mining Company run by Sir John Swinburne and Captain Arthur Levert to mine the land. This followed the permission Mzilikazi had given to prospectors and miners to work in the area in 1868.

One of the owners of the BSAC was Cecil John Rhodes.

“In November 1894 Cecil Rhodes made a formal request to the British government for control of the Bechuanaland Protectorate in order to facilitate railway construction.”

The idea from the BSAC was appealing to the British government, as it would not have to spend any money towards the upkeep of the Bechuanaland Protectorate. However, this caused panic among the Tswana chiefs, resulting in the journey of three

of them to “England to protest in person against the intention of the British government to transfer the administration of the country to the British South Africa Company, which the British saw as a means of protecting its colonial interest in the region at no cost to the public purse.”

Three way negotiations (British government, the BSAC and the three Tswana chiefs took place in London. The chiefs agreed to cede some land to the BSAC, as well as to collect tax for the administration of the Protectorate.

“The Dikgosi were supposed to collect tax through their chief’s representatives, headmen and paid collectors. This was an arrangement proposed by Khama III, Bathoen I (Ngwaketse) and Sebele I during their visit in England in 1895.”

Efficient tax collection required the establishment of native reserves, to ensure that each chief collected from his people. The chiefs received 10% commission, and thus the bigger the tax-paying population the better the share for the chief.

The, perhaps, unintended outcome of the native reserves is that it crystallised them into what is today known as Tribal Territories - the foundation upon which Botswana is built, recognising only eight tribes and casting the rest as insignificant, minor or subjects. This meant that each territory was assigned a chief amongst the eight Tswana chiefs, and the chiefs of all the other tribes were relegated to minor roles such as headmen who collected tax (but did not receive commission) and transmitted the collections to one of the eight chiefs who had jurisdiction over them. This was the classic British colonial policy of indirect rule.

Since the BSAC had received the land it required to build a railway line and had kept the Tati District with its gold reserves, the British government was also happy that the native tribes would pay taxes to administer the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

Having defeated Lobengula, the BSAC naturally assumed control of all the territory that had been under the jurisdiction of the Ndebele kingdom. However, as he had always wanted to gain control of Bukalanga, Khama used the occasion of the 1895 negotiations to gain territory from the BSAC. The BSAC was adamant, however, that it was the heir to Lobengula (having defeated him), and would not entertain Khama’s claims.

“Thus the danger of Matabele attack was removed from the Protectorate. Henceforth Khama’s disputes as to boundaries were with the company. Besides the old problem of the Shashi-Macloutsie area in the northeast, a new dispute had arisen in the north. In 1892 gold discoveries were made west of Tati and reported as being in Khama’s territory. Rhodes thereupon denied that Khama’s territory extended north of 22nd parallel S. latitude - claims in the new area belonged to the BSAC as heirs of Lobengula.”

During the 1895 London negotiations the BSAC and Khama deadlocked on Khama’s expansionist, territorial claims beyond the legally determined Bechuanaland Protectorate boundary at the 22nd parallel South latitude. The matter was then left to Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, to resolve. However, Sir Henry Loch had already taken a position on the matter in 1890.

“The chief point in the settlement which the company disputed with the Colonial Office was the extension of Khama’s boundaries to include areas, which they stated were occupied by Matabele.... Chamberlain refused to alter Khama’s boundaries ...”.

Thus: “Boundaries were laid down for all the reserves. Khama obtained more territory than he had specified in 1885 especially in the north and west where his boundary was the Nata River”.

In this single event, just like the Europeans had done when partitioning Africa in Berlin, Bukalanga was partitioned by the British Colonial Office in 1895. Except for the Tati District (the current North East District), Khama took over Bukalanga by that single act in London. Bakalanga woke up to learn that they were now Khama’s subjects.

He would now control all their affairs - their territory, language, chiefs - and brutally collect tax from them. This was viciously enforced by the British colonial officials. Bukalanga was to be further partitioned later as demarcation of hard boundaries took place between Southern Rhodesia and the Bechuanaland Protectorate around 1906.

All those boundaries have been maintained to this day, even though the ones marked by the European colonisers in Berlin are from time to time adjusted, particularly when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been involved.

As the 1899 Native Reserves were officially gazetted, Bukalanga (excluding the Tati District) was placed under the Bamangwato, and this has been maintained in all subsequent legislation up to today.

Although the reserves were initially created to make tax collection easy, they ended up leaving some tribes landless, and literally at the mercy of other tribes. This has a massive, debilitating impact. Such landless tribes are stripped of all their dignity, and are treated almost as if they are squatters.

In order to get any meaningful service, they have to visit the “Tribe’s” headquarters.

Such tribes cannot drape their chiefs in accordance with their customs and traditions, since they are in someone’s territory, and it is only the Chief of that Tribe that can be draped (go apesa kgosi). Hence, the laws of Botswana recognise only eight (8) tribes - all of them of Tswana stock.

A. LANGUAGE

When the new independence Constitution was adopted, it omitted the word “language” in the chapeau of section 3 where it outlines the grounds for fundamental rights and freedoms which are constitutionally protected.

Part of the chapeau reads: “Whereas every person in Botswana is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, whatever his or her race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex the provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of affording protection to those rights and freedoms ...”.

We find it odd that “language”, and maybe “tribe”, was left out of the chapeau. However, we are not surprised as this was clearly on the backdrop of the pretence that Botswana would be made up of eight {8) tribes which are a monolithic group, with Setswana as a common language, just as pertains in the Kingdoms of Lesotho and Eswatini.

This completely ignored the trend in international human rights treaties, which contained what may be termed standard provisions on such rights.

We consider the following: (a) U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 10th December 1948.

Article 2 of the Declaration reads: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

(b) European Convention on Human Rights 3’d September 1953

Article 14 reads: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

(c) U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19 December 1966 (ICCPR)

Article 2.1 reads: “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

(d) American Convention on Human Rights (22 November 1969)

Article 1(1) reads: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.”

(e) African Charter on Human and People’s Rights

Article 2 states: “Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or nay other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status.”

Botswana is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ICCPR and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, which all make clear that there can be no discrimination on the basis of language. Botswana also needs to make this clear in its Constitution.

It has been said that: “Even though the Protectoral Bechuanaland or the independent Botswana are not perfect representations of any potential Tswana kingdom, the protectorate represented “the Rolong - Ngwaketse - Kwena - Ngwato - (and later Kgatla and Tawana) alliance against the Boers originated in 1852. The four main kingdoms of pre colonial Botswana - Ngwaketse, Kwena, Ngwato and Tawana - were generously accommodated with territory in return for their alliance with the British.” There were still anomalies in the “reserves”, but overall the country represented the broad boundaries of a Tswana proto- state.”

The following points flow from the above passage:(a) since the British policy of indirect rule meant that only Tswana Chiefs were recognised, they were naturally the ones generously rewarded for allying with the British;

(b) “generous accommodation” meant being given large swathes of territory in some instances (where there were no other Tswana Tribes) and everything else within them (including the non-Tswana Tribes);

(c) since the non - Tswana Tribes had never been allies of the British they could not be trusted; at any rate if left to have their own chiefs they could rival the Tswana Tribes.

A simple solution was to destroy their chieftainships and take away their territories;.

(d) as a “potential Tswana kingdom”, both the Protectorate and Botswana recognised only one indigenous language, hence the omission of the word “language” as a basis of discrimination in section 3 of the Constitution.

It is now, therefore, time to exorcise the evil that colonialism wrought on vulnerable populations that are now part of the fabric, tapestry, and mosaic that is the Republic (and not kingdom) of Botswana.

The three (3) member bench of the High Court in Kamanakao I and Others v The Attorney- General and Another 20 confronted this situation with calmness and wisdom.

It said: “It is not difficult to see that in negotiations that preceded the adoption of the Constitution both the negotiators and some of the people in the country may at the time have been dissatisfied with some of the provisions contained in the Constitution; or indeed the omissions from it. Some of these dissatisfactions may represent unfinished business that arises from time to time to haunt new generations.

Now we come to the question whether the High Court can strike out part of the Constitution as inconsistent with or even contrary to another part of it. The question is not only important in relation to this case, but it also raises important considerations of what was intended in making a Constitution at all. One of the institutions of State created under the Constitution was the High Court of Botswana.

It has extensive jurisdiction and powers under section 95 of the Constitution and also the extended jurisdiction under section 18 which we cited earlier. Powerful as the High Court is, was it intended to second guess the founders and makers of the Constitution; with powers to reorganise the Constitution in the way it deems fit? To us to strike out one provision of the Constitution as offending another is to rewrite the Constitution, which as we said before, was a package.

To do so is equal to ranking the different provisions of the Constitution in order of precedence and importance – a thing which the framers of the Constitution did not do.

It would result in the establishment of a new balance for the balance established by the political representatives of the people.

In our view to be able to do so the High Court would need to have express powers from the body of the Constitution itself, enabling it to be the revisionary instrument for the alteration of the Constitution. Only with such powers and capability could the High Court act in a proper case to decide that the provision alleged to be offending can be subordinated to the one it is to be tested against. That is not normally the function of a court. The function is usually left, as has been done in the Botswana Constitution, to representatives of the electorate who can, through discussions and consultations amongst themselves and with their constituents, agree new provisions to right what is seen as wrong or lacking. If new values and any unfinished business require a place in the scheme of the Constitution, in our view Parliament is the proper institution to adopt such values and legislate them into the Constitution. The representatives of the electorate, in our view, are better placed to judge what the country as a whole would require from time to time, and when it would be opportune to act. It is not for the Court to do so.”

It is our understanding of the constitutional review process that the report of the Commission will be ultimately considered by Parliament. In this regard, therefore, our views will be placed before Parliament, so that the wrongs committed by the British almost one hundred and thirty (130) years ago can be corrected finally.

It is the duty of the State to protect all its citizens. It is the duty of the State to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally - both in law and perception, - and that none are the unwilling subjects of other tribes. In this regard, the State should stop using taxes paid by Bakalanga to enforce against them a Tribal Territories Act that gives them second class citizenship, and has dispossessed them of their territory. The important thing is that we should all be equal citizens of the same country - made up of as many diverse tribes as God made them. It is in this regard that we demand that a unified Bukalanga should be declared a Bukalanga Tribal Territory along its historical boundaries.

B. WISE WORDS

Speaking in 1970, the first President of the Republic of Botswana, Sir Seretse Khama said: “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 to 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.”21

Fifty two (52) years after those famous words were uttered, the history of Bakalanga is not taught. Bakalanga do not only lack a history to write about and teach in Botswana’s education system, and a past to celebrate, but they do not have any land in their name- that terrestrial space which inextricably links past history with both the present and the future.22The land their forebears fought for, shed blood for, and died for, is in the name of another tribe simply because the Government has decided to sanction and maintain colonial era laws.

British statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, famously remarked: “A nation that forgets its past has no future.”

Bakalanga, whatever the odds, will not forget.

C. CONCLUSION

Bakalanga were not involved in, or consulted on, the events in 1885, 1895, and in 1965 that have negatively impacted their lives as citizens of Botswana. They were peripheral, marginal, insignificant, inconsequential, and irrelevant. This Constitutional Review Commission gives them the opportunity to be heard loudly and clearly. We therefore submit to this Constitutional Review Commission that:

the historical boundaries of Bukalanga as derived from the time of the Mambo - which are co-terminus with those of the erstwhile Ndebele Kingdom in Botswana - should be restored and a single Bukalanga Tribal Territory be established encompassing the North East District and those parts of Bukalanga which are currently administered under the Central District Council and the Bamangwato Tribal Territory. Bukalanga was only divided as a result of the Tati Concessions, and the need to reward Khama in 1895. It should now be reunified as a full Tribal Territory - united by language, culture, a rich and proud history, customs and traditions, and with the requisite land mass and population;

{b) the newly established territory should be named the Bukalanga Tribal Territory. Tribal affiliation is a birth right. It is filial. It should not be foisted upon anyone through the Tribal Territories Act, and enforced vigorously by the State;

(c) such establishment would enable Bakalanga to reclaim their land - and enable them to also own land in their own territory and have property rights as a Tribe. The establishment of a Bukalanga Tribal Territory would not in any way deprive or diminish any citizen’s rights under any law;

(d) such establishment would allow Bakalanga to take possession of the land that their forebears have owned, husbanded and defended since before the 1500s, and thus avoid being treated as squatters on their own land. All that Bakalanga want, as a proud people with a deep cultural heritage, is to live their lives in dignity and quietness without another tribe lording over them simply because the Tribal Territories Act of Botswana permits that;

{e) having their own territory will give Bakalanga total control, and hence be able to run their dikgotla independently in accordance with their own customs, traditions and practices. If their traditions require them to install a chief or other leader by draping them with any animal skins then this would be consistent with their past and history, as well as culture, unlike now where they cannot perform these as they are told they have no territory, and thus there is only one chief who is draped in the territory; 23 in,

(f) Bakalanga should also be referred to as a Tribe (morafe) by State media, and not “banni ba ko...”;

(g) lkalanga should be used in dikgotla in the Bukalanga Tribal Territory. This should also be the case with respect to other languages spoken in different parts of Botswana. This would align Botswana’s laws with prevailing international human rights law, as language is every human being’s main medium for expressing their culture. The State should use taxes paid by all taxpayers (irrespective of Tribe) to sustain these.

Doing the above will restore the dignity of Bakalanga, and heal them.

As territories and former colonial possessions have regained their land (regardless of the manner in which they had been dispossessed), the overriding principle has always been one of restoration, independence and release from colonial yoke. This same principle should apply with equal measure to tribal hegemony and subjugation in Botswana.

The issue of who will lead the Bukalanga Tribal Territory will be determined by Bakalanga themselves at an appropriate time in accordance with their culture and tradition.

It is the duty of the State to protect all its citizens. It is the duty of the State to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally - both in law and perception, - and that none are the unwilling subjects of other tribes. In this regard, the State should stop using taxes paid by Bakalanga to enforce against them a Tribal Territories Act that gives them second class citizenship, and has dispossessed them of their territory. The important thing is that we should all be equal citizens of the same country - made up of as many diverse tribes as God made them. It is in this regard that we demand that a unified Bukalanga should be declared a Bukalanga Tribal Territory along its historical boundaries.

B. Wise wordsl Speaking in 1970, the first President of the Republic of Botswana, Sir Seretse Khama said: “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 to 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.”

Fifty two (52) years after those famous words were uttered, the history of Bakalanga is not taught. Bakalanga do not only lack a history to write about and teach in Botswana’s education system, and a past to celebrate, but they do not have any land in their name- that terrestrial space which inextricably links past history with both the present and the future.

The land their forebears fought for, shed blood for, and died for, is in the name of another tribe simply because the Government has decided to sanction and maintain colonial era laws.

British statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, famously remarked: “A nation that forgets its past has no future.”

Bakalanga, whatever the odds, will not forget.

C. CONCLUSION

Bakalanga were not involved in, or consulted on, the events in 1885, 1895, and in 1965 that have negatively impacted their lives as citizens of Botswana. They were peripheral, marginal, insignificant, inconsequential, and irrelevant. This Constitutional Review Commission gives them the opportunity to be heard loudly and clearly. We therefore submit to this Constitutional Review Commission that:

(a) the historical boundaries of Bukalanga as derived from the time of the Mambo - which are co-terminus with those of the erstwhile Ndebele Kingdom in Botswana - should be restored and a single Bukalanga Tribal Territory be established encompassing the North East District and those parts of Bukalanga which are currently administered under the Central District Council and the Bamangwato Tribal Territory. Bukalanga was only divided as a result of the Tati Concessions, and the need to reward Khama in 1895. It should now be reunified as a full Tribal Territory - united by language, culture, a rich and proud history, customs and traditions, and with the requisite land mass and population;

(b) the newly established territory should be named the Bukalanga Tribal Territory. Tribal affiliation is a birth right. It is filial. It should not be foisted upon anyone through the Tribal Territories Act, and enforced vigorously by the State;

(c) such establishment would enable Bakalanga to reclaim their land - and enable ithem to also own land in their own territory and have property rights as a Tribe.

The establishment of a Bukalanga Tribal Territory would not in any way deprive or diminish any citizen’s rights under any law;

(d) such establishment would allow Bakalanga to take possession of the land that their forebears have owned, husbanded and defended since before the 1500s, and thus avoid being treated as squatters on their own land.

All that Bakalanga want, as a proud people with a deep cultural heritage, is to live their lives in dignity and quietness without another tribe lording over them simply because the Tribal Territories Act of Botswana permits that;

{e) having their own territory will give Bakalanga total control, and hence be able to run their dikgotla independently in accordance with their own customs, traditions and practices.

If their traditions require them to install a chief or other leader by draping them with any animal skins then this would be consistent with their past and history, as well as culture, unlike now where they cannot perform these as they are told they have no territory, and thus there is only one chief who is draped in the territory; 23 in,

(f) Bakalanga should also be referred to as a Tribe (morafe) by State media, and not “banni ba ko...”;

(g) lkalanga should be used in dikgotla in the Bukalanga Tribal Territory. This should also be the case with respect to other languages spoken in different parts of Botswana. This would align Botswana’s laws with prevailing international human rights law, as language is every human being’s main medium for expressing their culture. The State should use taxes paid by all taxpayers (irrespective of Tribe) to sustain these.

Doing the above will restore the dignity of Bakalanga, and heal them.

As territories and former colonial possessions have regained their land (regardless of the manner in which they had been dispossessed), the overriding principle has always been one of restoration, independence and release from colonial yoke. This same principle should apply with equal measure to tribal hegemony and subjugation in Botswana.

The issue of who will lead the Bukalanga Tribal Territory will be determined by Bakalanga themselves at an appropriate time in accordance with their culture and tradition.