Botswana land belongs to 'AmaNdebele of Botswana'?

DR BOGA THURA MANATSHA gives a broader perspective on the troubled issue of land and bogosi in the North East District, some of which stem from the territory's erstwhile peculiar status as a colony within a protectorate.

On January 30, 2013, I received an unexpected call from a journalist working for Mmegi newspaper. The journalist desperately sought my views on the chieftaincy and the land issues in the North East District (NED), former Tati District. The journalist explained that there is a certain Nhlanhla Simon who claims to be the Induna (Chief) of the 'AmaNdebele of Botswana'.

The youthful Simon, described in Mmegi of February 1, 2013 as a "University of Botswana dropout", further claims that the NED belongs to the AmaNdebele and he is the Chief of the NED. Between December 5th and 10th  2012, Mmegi claims to have received three letters from Simon directed to the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, the Minister of Lands and Housing, and Kgosi Thabo Masunga. I read the contents of the said letters in Mmegi of 18 December 2012. In the letter(s), Simon threatens the government to cease allocating land in that part of Botswana because the NED and its bogosi "belong" to the 'AmaNdebele of Botswana'.

He contends that the AmaNdebele King Lobengula was wrongfully dispossessed of his land by the Tati Concessions and the Colonial Administration in the 1880s. Kgosi Masunga, who happens to be my Kgosi, argued that he has no time to respond to Simon because he (Simon) should have used the right channels. Masunga also reasons that some issues raised by Simon are "beyond his jurisdiction". Minister Peter Siele said the boy should be asked "gore ke ngwana wa ga mang, le gore o romilwe ke mang" (whose child is he, and who sent him?). The government spokesperson, Dr Jeff Ramsay, who happens to be a reputable historian, laughed and said he has no time to waste on such kind of people.Personally, I was a bit concerned about the ignorance of Simon who simplifies such a complex issue. His (mis)interpretation of historical facts got me worried. It was this worry which led me to give the Mmegi journalist a free lecture.

Nonetheless, I noticed, after reading the Mmegi article on January 1, 2013 titled "The Kalanga's history of dispossession" that the journalist had a very minimal understanding of the whole issue too, hence the shallowness. This is despite the fact that I had elaborated on the issue. Some critical readers, especially my friend, Abel Mabuse, realised this and immediately called, complaining about the shallowness of the article.Mabuse was right and I admitted. He suggested a rebuttal. Instead, I will offer a comprehensive piece to educate Simon and Batswana at large about the history of the NED, its land question and the chieftaincy. There is a danger of trying to settle contemporary problems using history, especially if one has very little knowledge about the said history. Unlike Kgosi Masunga, the minister, and Simon's parents who dismissed Simon as erratic, I will not just dismiss him but will give him a free and thorough lecture.

I want Simon to fully understand the NED history well so that he can go back and restrategise, if need be, because little knowledge is more dangerous than none. I am only going to confine myself to the NED history, bogosi and the land question, which Simon has a vague comprehension about. It is a pity that Simon chose to ridicule himself through the media instead of going to the National Archives and the University of Botswana library to arm himself with correct information and facts. It is naive for Simon to say that most of the inhabitants of the NED are the AmaNdebele but disguise themselves as the BaKalanga for fear of victimisation.

There is a serious problem in Botswana, especially that people tend to discuss issues casually on Facebook without critically analysing them. Simon claims that he has 1,500 followers on his Facebook page who support his course. He is unaware that Batswana are fond of passing remarks on Facebook even if a serious issue is being discussed. I think some of these casual remarks were taken by Simon as authentic and substantiated, hence his misguided confidence. He talks about Btv being present when Kgosi Thabo Masunga's uncle, Christopher Masunga, was installed as a regent in the early 1990s. I was doing Standard Six then, and Btv was not there. The main problem in the NED, from my informed view, is the land question and this sucks in the chieftaincy. Since the colonial period, land has been the most critical issue in this district, and it shall remain so.

The district is a former Colony within a Protectorate. It was solely owned by the Tati Concessions as I shall show. The AmaNdebele, which Simon claims own the land and the bogosi in the NED, arrived a bit late in the region, and their arrival caused the confusion that we experience in the NED land question.Land defines the economic and political power of its bearers. It also has spiritual, symbolical, historical and cultural significance. The politics of its ownership, access and control, particularly in Africa, has aroused intriguing, if not controversial debates, hence Simon's awry demands. The NED differs with other districts in that whereas Botswana was a British Protectorate from 1885-1965, it was ceded and effectively colonised by a colonial syndicate later known as the Tati Concessions (later renamed the Tati Company).

This Company alienated all the land belonging to Africans. Tapela (1976) contends that the district resembled the Native Reserves of Southern Rhodesia, South Africa and the Kenyan Highlands. The NED is inhabited by various ethnic groups and tribes of different origins and histories. For various reasons, the colonial administration recognised only five diKgosi, and their territorial boundaries were defined around 1912 and 1917.These were Rauwe of the BaKhurutshe (and later his paternal uncle Ramokate); Moroka of the BaRolong; Habangana, Masunga and Mosojane (of the BaKalanga).

Mosojane and Masunga boundary was Ntoba River; Rauwe/Ramokate and Masunga was Vukwi River; Habangana and Mosojane was Tati River but from the Zwenshambe Hills, an imaginary line ran all the way to a big tree between Pole and Mosojane; Moroka and Habangana boundary was Gwebasechana River etc. To my knowledge, no official boundaries were redrawn since then. Some villages later emerged after the colonial administration and thecurrent government purchased land from the Tati Concessions and the freehold land owners. This includes villages such as Siviya where the AmaNdebele are found.

They are also found in Senyawe, Jackalas No. 1 and 2; the BaRolong in Moroka, Ramokgwebana and Matsiloje; the BaZezuru in Moroka, Francistown and Shashe Bridge; the BaKalanga of BaPedi stock in Masunga and Kalakamate; the BaKalanga of other origins are also found in Mapoka, Masukwane and Mosojane; the BaKwena in Kgari and Tsamaya; the BaKhurutshe in Makaleng and Kalakamate; the BaNgwato in Tshesebe etc. The Setswana-speaking groups came into the area and found the BaKalanga already there. Mzilikazi's people, originally from northern Zululand, arrived in the region around 1838. They were known as the Matabele by the outside world; and their descendants called themselves the Ndebele. Mzilikazi neither used the two names. He called his people the Zulu (Etherington 2001).

Nonetheless, the BaKalanga and the BaKhurutshe lived peacefully in the area long before the Ndebele arrived in now southern Zimbabwe. Their arrival radically changed the politics of the entire region. The Ndebele are the Zulus of the AmaKhumalo clan and were under Machobane, the father of Mzilikazi. Mzilikazi became an Induna under King Shaka of the Zulu. For some reasons, he decided to run away from Shaka with about 300 men. His name came into prominence around 1826. 'How Mzilikazi got to this point in 1826 has long been a matter of controversy' (Etherington 2001:159). After running away from Shaka, he wondered around reaching places such as Magaliesberg, Pretoria, Zeerust, Tswapong, Nata, and eventually his group split into two.

Mzilikazi's group moved northwards and westwards, while the one led by Gundwane moved to a place near modern Bulawayo. In 1840 Mzilikazi's group re-joined Gundwane where Mzilikazi re-assumed his role as the leader of the unified AmaNdebele (Tlou & Campbell 1997:159-60). Before the Ndebele arrived, the BaKalanga in Bulilima-gwa-Men'we region were attacked by other Mfecane remnants and their Mambo/King Chirisamhuru was killed (Tlou & Campbell 1997).The BaKalanga State of Butua, which extended to modern NED, was left without a Mambo. When the AmaNdebele, first under Gundwane, invaded the area, they conquered it with ease. However, it was after the arrival of Mzilikazi, in 1840, that the Ndebele took total control of the BaKalanga and established their authority with brutal force.

Skilfully, Mzilikazi allowed rulers like Mengwe to rule their own people, but forced them to pay tribute and pledge allegiance to him. In 1850, the BaKalanga did something which cost them; they appointed a new Mambo to lead them.They then tried to attack the AmaNdebele, who responded with ruthlessness. The AmaNdebele crushed them and firmly asserted their authority. From that moment and until 1893, the Ndebele 'claimed all the land between Motloutse River and the Zambezi, and that lying westwards to Makgadikgadi. [Mzilikazi] used his armies to enforce his rule, but he never gained full control of the lands lying in modern Botswana, or of the Shona lands of eastern Zimbabwe' (Tlou & Campbell 1997:159).But the European missionaries, concessionaries and hunters, including the colonial administration, dealt with the Ndebele Kings because of their military might.

It was this reason that they chose to deal with them when the dubious concessions over the Tati District, the BaKalanga land, were granted. The concessionaires knew well that the Ndebele were not the rightful owners of the BaKalanga land. The Ndebele demanded tribute from the BaKalanga and the BaKhurutshe by force. When the Europeans arrived in the region, the Ndebele Kings were the main contenders. But Khama III of the BaNgwato also claimed the NED arguing that the BaKalanga and the BaKhurutshe were his subjects.

It was left with the Europeans to decide whether to deal with Khama III or the Ndebele Kings. The Ndebele would have easily expelled the Europeans had they chose to deal with Khama. The district became a 'buffer zone' between the two Kings. From 1840 until 1860, the Ndebele predations forced a large section of the BaKalanga and the entire BaKhurutshe to flee the area and seek refuge from Khama III. But Khama, in the view of the refugees, was also a dictator (Schapera 1971:221-31).Thus when Lobengula was defeated, in 1893, by the British South Africa Company, the BaKalanga and the BaKhurutshe quickly went back to their ancestral land. But the concessionaires had already acquired concessions from the Ndebele.

The concessionaires were attracted to the area by rich wildlife and gold deposits around the Tati River (Dati in Ikalanga). Gold was rediscovered in 1866 by an Australian geologist, Karl Mauch. The Ndebele argued that they had the right to the land because they acquired it through conquest. In 1895 the BaKhurutshe and the BaKalanga tried to reclaim their land. Annoyingly, the concessions signed by the Ndebele were facilitated by the missionaries (the men of God).Captain Levert met Lobengula in April 1870 and obtained a grant of exclusive mineral rights over the whole of the Tati area for the London-Limpopo Company. Lobengula was not aware of the true intents of the White man. The negotiations between Levert and Lobengula led to the rise of the first concessions.

During the Gold rush in the NED, rich diamond deposits were also discovered at Kimberly, South Africa. This led to the concessionaires abandoning the NED to join the diamond rush. It was during their absence that their concessions, signed between themselves, Mzilikazi and Lobengula, expired or were unilaterally revoked by Lobengula. Thus, on September 2, 1880, Lobengula nullified all the previous concessions. He said, "I hereby make null and void all grants or cessions made... in former years to seek or dig for gold in the Tati District" (quoted in Schapera 1971:251).

He then granted a new concession to a syndicate called The Northern Light Company (later renamed the Tati Concessions) "the sole right to seek and dig for gold in the ground between Shashi and Ramokgwebana Rivers" (quoted n Schapera 1971:251). Lobengula promised that his "grant shall remain binding upon [him] and [his] successors so long as the... payment is made punctually on the 2nd day of September in every succeeding year".In 1885, when the British declared a Protectorate over Botswana, the disputed Tati District was included in the boundaries of the new Protectorate. It should be noted that Lobengula insisted that he had only given the Tati Concessions right to mine gold, not surface rights. He also said that he shall remain the 'owner' of the land in question.However, after his demise, in 1893, the Tati Concessions claimed, contrary to the 1880 and 1887 concessions, that it was the legal heir to the NED. In 1894, the British Secretary of State drafted a new concession.

It was, however, qualified as follows: 'all such grants as those that made to the Company relate to waste and unoccupied lands, and cannot be understood to authorise interference with pre-existing Native rights, which... the Crown has no power to give away' (Botswana National Archives HC.155). The 'Native rights' meant the BaKalanga and the BaKhurutshe because the British government never officially recognised Lobengula as the owner of the disputed land nor the concessions as legal. In 1895 the exiled BaKhurutshe and BaKalanga returned to their ancestral land only to find the Tati Concessions occupying it. To reoccupy it, they needed conditional permission from the company (Botswana National Archives S.RC 10/4). Desperate, powerless and landless, the BaKhurutshe, led by Kgosi Rauwe, 'dragged' the company to court, but lost (Botswana National Archives RC 8/4). The court upheld that the concessions signed between the company and Lobengula were valid.

However, the legal adviser to the colonial administration, Dr Ward, differed and argued that the concessions were signed under 'dubious' circumstances. Unmoved, the court granted 'the Company surface rights, and [treated] the matter as if such surface rights had been actually the property of the Tati Concession' (Botswana National Archives HC 13).Without choice, the BaKhurutshe and the BaKalanga had to accept the conditions imposed by the Tati Concessions. Such conditions included the provision of labour, without fail, to the company mines, selling agricultural produce to the company stores at fixed prices, amongst others. All these were contained in a Memorandum of Agreement signed between Rauwe and the Tati Concessions in 1895. But Rauwe quickly fell out with the Tati Concessions after failing to supply constant labour as agreed in 1895 (Mogotsi 1983). Rauwe then petitioned the colonial administration. He narrated the history of his people and his right to reclaim his lost land (Botswana National Archives S.RC 10/4). His lengthy complaints were brought to the attention of the High Commissioner by the Resident Commissioner.

The Resident Commissioner was disturbed by the conditions contained in the 1895 Memorandum of Agreement.
These conditions, the Resident Commissioner argued, were contrary to the British policies. He cited forced labour as inhumane (Botswana National Archives S. RC 10/4).The BaKhurutshe were also forced to pay 10 shillings for every hut built on their land, they could only buy goods from the company stores, and they were not allowed to kill game. It was not until January 1903 that the British government gave its sincere opinion on the matter. The government could not admit the authority of the Tati Concessions to regulate or prohibit the settling of squatters in an area of the concession signed between the Ndebele and the Tati Concessions (Mogotsi 1983).

The officials in London also felt that the conditions imposed by the company contravened the British colonial policies. But the company arrogantly threatened to evict the BaKhurutshe from their land, or what it claimed to be its own land (see Werbner 1969).The British officials felt that Rauwe should not be evicted from the land after occupying it for eight years without endangering peace and stability. But the Tati Concessions ignored this. In 1904 it proceeded to warn the BaKhurutshe that they would soon be evicted.

The BaKhurutshe pleaded with the Tati Concessions arguing that they were building churches and schools at huge expenses. The BaKalanga were living in scattered settlements under the Tati Concessions' sphere of influence.The conflict compelled the British government to find a lasting and perhaps compromising solution.Thus, after lengthy discussions, the British government came up with Proclamation No. 2 of 1911 which set up a native reserve called the Tati Native Reserve.The Protectorate administration agreed to pay an annual rent of 1000 British Pounds to the Tati Concessions in lieu of the latter's right to collect rent from Africans in the new reserve.The 1911 Proclamation granted 'The Tati Concessions, its successors and assigns... the full, free and undisturbed [rights] as owners of all the land within the Tati District'.

It added that 'Tati Concessions... shall have full power and authority to dispose by sale, lease, or otherwise of any portion of land within the Tati District... and the purchaser or lessee or occupier under any agreement with the Tati Concessions... shall have the right of full, free and undisturbed possession subject to the terms of the said purchase, lease or agreement...' (Tati Concessions Land Act 21 January 1911).The Tati Concessions insisted that when it acquired the land it was not inhabited. This is expressed in Samuel Edwards and Robert Moffat's words that "Nowhere can we see human habitation or the print of a human foot" (quoted in Mupindu 1983:2). The AmaNdebele are to blame because they had chased most of the NED inhabitants upon their arrival in 1840. Nonetheless, the Tati Concessions later realised that mining was not profitable in the area hence it wanted to exploit agriculture. It demarcated the land into small farming units and encouraged White settlers to come to the region, though this dismally failed.

In 1912 the newly established Reserve was so small such that it could not accommodate all its inhabitants.Therefore, some villages were later established on the land bought from the Tati Concessions.The colonial administration recognised only five diKgosi. These diKgosi had sour relations amongst themselves and the colonial administration; especially over the land issue and the chieftaincy.For instance, the BaKalanga diKgosi contested the colonial administration's arbitrary decision to place them under the 'watchful eye' of the BaKhurutshe Kgosi. The BaKhurutshe Kgosi was instructed by the colonial administration to collect tax from the BaKalanga (Schapera 1971:224).In the mid-1930s the colonial administration recommended that all BaKalanga should be resettled in the crown lands of Nata to ease the land problem. The BaKhurutshe and the BaRolong were to remain. The BaKalanga diKgosi were consulted, but only Masunga was receptive of the idea. Habangana and Mosojane instantly refused.

Nonetheless, Masunga could not convince his people to relocate. The BaKalanga remained under the 'supervision' of the BaKhurutshe. Yet the BaRolong were not subject to this condition. The BaKalanga diKgosi refused to recognise the authority of the BaKhurutshe.This, together with the struggle over land, brought fissures in bogosi.As per the Bogosi Act, the diKgosi in the NED elect one amongst themselves to represent the district at Ntlo ya diKgosi on a five-year rotational term.  Another interesting issue is that the NED is surrounded by freehold farms and the Tati Company land. Some villages were created from such farms. In such cases, bogosi becomes contested and political. A Kgosi in this case is democratically elected by the kgotla. Electing Kgosi has its own share of controversy. Schapera (1938:42) commented that 'A chief is never selected'.Kgosi Jackalas of the Ndebele of Siviya once represented the NED at Ntlo ya diKgosi. No Kgosi/tribe can claim to be the sole owner of the NED. Such claims will raise divisions especially if people have no understanding of the complex history of this area. So Nhlanhla Simon should be careful not to confuse himself and his 1,500 followers on Facebook. Kgosi Masunga should not think that such people are detractors, but should view them as suffering from knowledge bankruptcy.