An open letter to Minister of Lands and Water Affairs

With respect, I wish to draw your attention to the following undisputed facts, this being against the allegation widely reported in the media that fovernment is buying or has bought land, part of the Tati District, from the Tati Company Ltd.

● The Tati District was and still is the ancestral land of the Kalanga people just as other areas of this country and of Zimbabwe, long before the Ndebele and the British set foot on this region.

● King Lobengula of the Ndebele, however, as well as his predecessor King Mzilikazi, claimed, and it was widely recognised, in particular by the British, that the Tati District was part of Matebeleland by conquest.

● It was during the time in history described as ‘the gold rush’ when Lobengula granted mining and exploration concessions for gold over the Tati District. These were granted for an annual fee or rental and on the condition that ‘the sovereign rights’ over the land remained with Lobengula as the owner of the land. Clearly, Lobengula had suspected that some of his concessionaires might not be honest enough and might turn around and claim ownership of the land if such reservation or condition was not inserted in the agreement, and he was right.

● One of the first of such concessions was granted by Lobengula in 1870 to a company known as the London and Limpopo Mining & Exploration Company Ltd owned by the British Baronet, Sir John Swinburne, and his colleague, Captain Arthur Lionel Levert. To confirm Lobengula’s fears, soon after the concession was signed, Sir John Swinburne and his colleague gathered the Tati District residents together and misrepresented the terms of the agreement to them by claiming that by the grant, the Tati District virtually belonged to them and their company, the Tati Concessions Ltd. Fortunately, after a year or so, the concession was terminated by Lobengula for failure to pay the agreed annual rental. Little, at that time anyway, did Lobengula appreciate that the Baronet would come back after his death and with British complicity successfully claim ownership of the entire Tati District.

● In 1894 Lobengula was overthrown by the British Colonial Forces during the Amandebele war of 1893/94. He is presumed to have perished in that war in January of 1894. Exactly where and when he died is not certain. What is certain, however, is that he was never seen again after that war. Another fact is that roughly six months after his presumed death, and by the Matebeleland Order in Council dated July 18, 1894, the British transferred the entire Matebeleland to a company known as the British South Africa Company, owned, inter alia, by Cecil John Rhodes, “… excluding the area of the district known as the Tati District … “. The question is, if one may ask, why was the Tati District deducted or excluded from Matebeleland when Mateleland was transferred to the British South Africa Company? The answer seems to me obvious: to be given away to another Briton as was later done.

● Indeed, in 1895, a year after Lobengula’s death, the notorious British Baronet, Sir John Swinburne, through his company called Tati Concessions Ltd, unlawfully took over concession rights from the Tati Concessions Mining & Exploration Company Ltd owned by Samuel Edwards and James Fairbairn. I say unlawfully, because up to that point, concessions were obtainable only from King Lobengula who was the owner of the Tati District but was no more since January 1894 and no successor of his had as yet, if ever, been appointed. That notwithstanding, however, Sir John Swinburne, through his company, the Tati Concessions Ltd, asserted himself by not only claiming ownership of the land but he started collecting rent from the owners of the land who, naturally, protested. And to add fuel to fire, shortly thereafter, Sir John Swinburne was appointed, by the Protectorate Authority, Justice of the Peace and given magisterial powers over the inhabitants of the district, i.e. over the people he was at loggerheads with concerning the rental payments he demanded from them over their own land.

● That aggravated the situation and led to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry which, instead of looking into the grievances of the inhabitants of the land, was directed “to enquire and make recommendations as to the extent and situation of land necessary for the occupation and sustenance of the natives within the Tati District”. In other words, instead of addressing the grievances of ‘the natives’, the Commission was to look into the question of how ‘the natives’ could be accommodated on their own land as if they were the strangers. This can only mean one thing and one thing only; a decision had already been taken to deprive ‘the natives’ of their land. 2hat remained to be done was simply what was to be done with them while they were on the land. The Commission had no choice but to recommend that the Tati Concessions Ltd “be confirmed in the full, free, and undisturbed possession as the owners of all the land within the Tati District”, and ‘the natives’ be given “a strip of country as a reserve for their occupation and sustenance”.

● As was expected, Proclamation No. 2 dated January 21, 1911, which transferred the whole of the Tati District to the² Tati Concessions Ltd followed the recommendations of this Commission of Inquiry and created “a strip of country as a reserve for the occupation and sustenance of the natives” the rental for which, being £1,000 per annum, was to be paid by the government to the Tati Concessions Ltd as henceforth the owner of the Tati District. Naturally, the ‘strip of country’ so set aside proved too small for the entire population of the district, and whole families, split or not, and their possessions were squeezed out of that limited space and had to find comfort elsewhere. To make matters worse, those who were living outside this ‘strip of country’ such as in Senyawe, Siviya, etc., were to move into this already too congested ‘strip of country’, or go elsewhere, or become tenants of the Tati Concessions Ltd. There was therefore nowhere else to go but to cross over to the Bamangwato Reserve, which was in accordance with British policy at the time - “go there and get assimilated”. Many of these families are today settled in Mmadinare, Tamasane, Tonota, Serule, Topisi, Mosetse, Nata, Serowe and other places in the Central (Bamangwato) District, where most of them have completely lost their culture, language and history as intended by the British. There were enormous consequential losses associated with this movement to Bamangwato territory; and generally, for those who remained there was little development, commercially, agriculturally and otherwise, because of lack of land and other restrictions placed on the residents of the native reserve so created.

● The reason given in the Proclamation for expropriating this land to the Tati Concessions Ltd was completely disingenuous and petty. The Proclamation had this to say: “Whereas it is expedient (emphasis mine) to confirm the Tati Concessions Limited in the full, free and undisturbed possession as owners of all the land within the Bechuanaland Protectorate, usually known as the Tati District …….” In my view, it is strange that land can be expropriated for the sake of expediency as if it is a no man’s land, which the Tati District was clearly not. To be blunt, the Tati District was stolen, first, from Matebeleland after Lobengula’s death, and then from its native populations of Mosojane, Habangana, Masunga and other inhabitants.

● As an afterthought, I would opine, roughly four months later, and on May 4, 1911, an Order in Council was decreed, in which, amazingly, doubt was expressed as to the ownership of the Tati District; and to remove that doubt, it was considered expedient, once again, “to vest the land in His Majesty” the King, notwithstanding the fact that the land was now owned by the Tati Concessions Ltd, per Proclamation No. 2 of January 21, 1911. Again, I find these apparent contradictions or inconsistencies disingenuous and not at all honest. A number of questions do arise, though, from these contradictions or inconsistencies, looked at objectively. For example:

● If the Tati District was taken off Matebeleland in July1894, which is a fact, when and how did it become part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate as claimed by both the Proclamation and the Oder in Council, both of 1911, cited above?

● If the Tati District was part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate at the time of the Proclamation cited above, and there were people living in it, as a matter of fact, why was it necessary, or what was the motivation, to expropriate it to the Tati Concessions Ltd?

● How could land owned by a public company such as the Tati Concessions Ltd as per Proclamation No. 2 of 1911, at the same time, vest in His Majesty as per the Order in Council of 4th May, 1911?

● Was any other part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate ever, so disposed of with so much disruption, movement/evacuation and suffering of the inhabitants as happened with the Tati District and nobody cared? More questions could be asked. Clearly, the Tati District was disposed of or expropriated to the Tati Concessions Ltd with malice.

● Nota Bene: In my mind, on the facts outlined so far, there is no question at all that the Tati District was given away to the Tati Concessions Ltd by an act of theft on the part of both the British and their Baronet, Sir John Swinburne, acting on behalf of his company, the said Tati Concessions Ltd. If anyone has any facts to the contrary, please let us have them in the public interest.

● In 1914, only four years roughly, after taking ownership of the entire district, the Tati Concessions Ltd went into voluntary liquidation for reconstruction purposes only, and emerged later as the Tati Company Limited. This was a change of name only and not a change in status, not that it would have mattered. I am aware that the Tati Company Ltd has changed its directors and shareholders, perhaps several times, but it matters not as far as its liability for the sins of its predecessor, the Tati Concessions Ltd, are concerned.

● To lay out this painful history of the Tati District, I was prompted by media reports that government was buying or has bought land from the Tati Company Ltd. A number of questions arise, the first being, is the government aware or not that the Tati Company land is stolen land? Secondly, how did the company acquire ownership of the Tati District in a country such as the Bechuanaland Protectorate and was the acquisition lawful? Where was British Protection, if I may ask? Proclamation No. 2 of 1911, on which the government seems to rely, reveals, on close examination, serious flaws, which are inconsistent with legitimate ownership of the Tati District by the Tati Company Ltd or its namesake the Tati Concessions Ltd.

● The 15 or so years (1895-1911) of illegal occupation and levying of rent by the Baronet on the indigenous people of the land, condoned and supported by the British, did not at all amount to possession of the Tati District by the Baronet or his company, the Tati Concessions Ltd, as the Proclamation seems to have found.

● It is patently wrong and immoral to transfer, to an illegal occupier, ownership of land the size of the Tati district, in which there were organised villages, each led by a chief, for no justifiable reason but just because it is expedient to do so, as the British did in Proclamation No. 2 of 1911. That transfer cannot be condoned as valid and clearly, amounted to theft from the owners of the land.

● Finally, the Tati Company has now sold most of the land, it ever had in its possession, as farms and plots in town, and has no more land to rent out. It has invested all the money so realised outside this country and not a thebe was ever invested in the so-called ‘native reserves’ rented out to government for £1,000 per annum. There is no district like the Tati District in all of Botswana, with so many rivers, rivulets and streams of all sizes, perhaps the reason why Sir John Swinburne so admired it that he falsely claimed it, and the British gave it to him to make money at our expense. The bulk of the water in the form of dams for the development and sustenance of this country comes from this district, yet the district remains one of the least developed, in terms of infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and other infrastructural necessities. Some of the roads have had to be closed because they had become impassable for lack of maintenance and bridges necessary to cross over to another village. The situation becomes worse, particularly in the rainy seasons. This has become intolerable, now and for many years. All said, the right thing to do is for the government not to buy this land, but for the Tati Company to surrender the land to the government on behalf of the people of the Tati District and, for the money, which was to purchase the land, over a billion Pula, to be used to develop the Tati District.

It is on the above stated facts that government is invited to join or lead the people of the Tati District in seeking appropriate reparations from the British government and the Tati Company Limited. There is very little or virtually no land at all in the hands of the Tati Company now. It is no longer practical to recover all the land they unlawfully took in 1911, all or most of which is now in the hands of third and even fourth and so forth parties, and developed in all sort of ways. I am,

Yours faithfully,

John Zwibili Mosojane

P. O. Box 1364

Francistown.

Email: jzmosojane@gmail.com Tel. 71306281