Seretse Khama was no saint
UB Academics open a can of worms on founding president
The independence President of Botswana, Seretse Khama, who led Botswana from 1965 until 1980 when he died, has generally enjoyed approval from both local and international observers.
Born on the 1st July 1921, Khama would have turned 100 years this year had he been alive. His legacy was celebrated with song and dance on the occasion of his birthday two weeks ago in Serowe, his home village and the capital city, Gaborone.
Those who sing the praises of the founding President, say he was a true democrat, patriot, a peace lover, a visionary and a nation builder who served the nation with utmost humility and dedication.
To some, the very fact that Khama is the first President of Botswana makes him a legend, who, alongside other nationalists such as Philip Matante, Kgalemang Motsete and Motsamai Mpho of the Botswana Peoples’ Party (BPP), championed the independence of Botswana.
In particular, Khama has been praised for refusing to declare Botswana a one party state when the practice was in vogue in the majority of the newly-formed independent states on the continent back in the 1960s.
This, it is said, spared Botswana the spectre of a civil war which was common in one-party states throughout Africa and beyond. For Adam Mfundisi, a Public Policy Analyst and lecturer at the University of Botswana (UB), Khama continues to get enthusiastic accolades despite his failure to address historical injustices partly because, in most African cultures, it is anathema to disparage a deceased person.
Those who despise Khama’s rule outright, however, accuse him of having failed to address historical injustices such as the land grab by Tati Company and the resultant marginalisation of the indigenous people which persists to this day. Khama himself stands accused of a ‘fraudulent’ or ‘’dubious’’ deal with the Tati Company. He has reportedly expropriated large portions of land in several places in this country including Francistown and the North East District (NED) when he was President.
The freehold land owned by Tati Company bestows the company with private land rights and can dispose it without state intervention. It has unlimited rights over land in the Northeast District, including Francistown.
Historically, the Tati Company, as we know it today was incorporated in 1914 after the demise of Tati Concession Limited. A South African business guru named Bernard Glazer and family took over the management of Tati Company. “The company became the largest owner of land in the North East part of Botswana. Mineral exploration and ownership became the main thrust of the company. “In 1970, Glazier entered into a controversial and secret agreement with the first President Sir Seretse Khama. This covert agreement enabled the Tati Company and Glazer unfettered rights in the ownership of more than 40percent of fertile and mineral rich land in Francistown and North East District”, Mfundisi explained.
The company sells land to government on a willing seller willing buyer basis at exorbitant prices. It also sells to farmers. The majority of landowners are Europeans and South Africans who still exhibit racist tendencies towards workers and visitors in independent Botswana. Tati Company practiced racism even after independence. Silly taxes were introduced such as a husband being taxed for marrying a second! Land redistribution in Botswana remains a mirage over 50 years after independence in the North East and Francistown areas. This is believed to be one of the major enablers of Botswana’s economic inequalities. The indigenous people are deprived of land for residential, business and farming activities whereas land remains abundant and owned by absentee owners in Britain. The British colonial administration was alarmed by Botswana People’s Party agitation for land ownership by Botswana natives. The BPP slogan is ‘ Lefatshe’ which emphasises the centrality of land as a critical resource in the development of the people and the country. Land is one of the major sources of production and its scarcity portends poverty and squalor. Post-independence, the Khama-led Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) did not disappoint the British colonial administration. Nor has it done anything about the massive land owned by the Tati Company by way of redistributing it to the people. Instead the status quo obtains and white minority interests are protected and served through public policy. The ruling party has rebuffed opposition calls for forcible land expropriation and insisted that any radical reforms on land would scare away investors. The opposition Botswana Congress Party (BCP) wants a land audit to determine who owns what and how they got the land. According to Mfundisi, “We must also admit that Seretse Khama was a ‘land grabber’ and a proponent of private land ownership.
“During his Presidency, he acquired a large chunk of land throughout Botswana. His government enacted public policies that promoted the acquisition of land by the social, political, and economic elite. “Farms were demarcated and allocated to the ruling class at the expense of the poor,” the UB academic said, adding that since the dawn of political independence, the majority of people have not received a fair share of the country’s wealth.
The descendants of the white settlers who acquired land through dubious and mostly racist policies sit on large chunks of land while their African counterparts are landless and in dire need of a livelihood.
Another UB academic, Professor Wazha Morapedi, said Khama worked in cahoots with the imperialists at the expense of his own people.
“In fact, he stole land from his own people and this is the time for the restitution of the land which has immense spiritual and economic significance to the people”, Morapedi said. Tati Land board has consistently complained about shortage of land to distribute to the people. Perennial land shortages have, according to the analysts, compromised the construction of public amenities, allocation of residential plots, arable land and grazing pastures. Khama’s successors, say the analysts, have continued the legacy of the first President by further increasing the gap between the haves and the have-nots, a situation that belies the much-hyped inclusive development.