Former minister Dr Margaret Nasha says the controversial relocation of Basarwa from CKGR was driven not by hostility towards the community but by the prohibitive cost and logistical challenges of delivering essential public services to the remote area
TEFO PHEAGE
Former Local Government Minister Dr Margaret Nasha has hinted that President Duma Boko’s decision to facilitate the return of Basarwa communities to the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) could confront his administration with the same financial and logistical challenges that informed their controversial relocation more than two decades ago.
Nasha, who oversaw the relocation exercise in the 2000s, defended the decision as a practical response to the difficulties of providing essential services in the remote reserve, rather than an act of hostility towards Basarwa.
Her remarks come in the wake of President Boko’s announcement that his government intends to facilitate the return of Basarwa to the CKGR as part of efforts to address historical injustices and restore ancestral land rights.
“We took that decision based on the circumstances prevailing at the time. Government had to consider the practical realities of providing services in extremely difficult terrain,” Nasha said. She emphasised the prohibitive cost of extending infrastructure across the vast reserve, where scattered settlements and difficult terrain complicated service delivery.
Education Access
Nasha singled out education as a major consideration, arguing that “children growing up in isolated CKGR settlements were being denied opportunities available to their counterparts elsewhere”.
“One of the things that informed our decision was the plight of children who were growing up without access to education. When I look back today and see some of those children having passed through university, I feel a sense of satisfaction,” she said.
Service Costs
However, Nasha cautioned that the UDC administration must confront the financial implications of restoring settlements within the reserve, particularly the cost of providing schools, healthcare, roads and other essential services.
“Taking services into the CKGR is an extremely expensive undertaking. These are realities we grappled with during our time, and they have not simply disappeared,” she said.
She further argued that the reserve’s conservation mandate cannot be overlooked, emphasising that the CKGR was established primarily as a wildlife sanctuary.
“We must also remember what the Central Kalahari Game Reserve was established for. It is a game reserve, and its conservation purpose cannot simply be ignored,” she said.
Sesana Responds
However, prominent Basarwa activist Roy Sesana rejected Nasha’s justification, arguing that financial considerations cannot override the rights of citizens to live on their ancestral land.
“Government routinely spends substantial resources providing infrastructure and public services to communities across Botswana, why Basarwa should be treated differently? Basarwa are equally entitled to benefit from public resources regardless of where they choose to reside,” Sesana said.
Sesana described the proposed return to the CKGR as akin to “going to Canaan”.
The controversy dates back to the landmark 2006 High Court judgment in Sesana and Others v Attorney General, which found that the applicants had been unlawfully deprived of possession of their settlements and that refusing their return without permits was unconstitutional.