There was no compensation for the tribe, contrary to provisions of section eight (8) of the constitution.
As a result, Tlokweng cannot grow because it is sandwiched by the city, freehold farms, Gaborone dam, townships and the border with South Africa.
“Part of this land, on which Gaborone is built, formed part of the Batlokwa people’s cattle posts and was also the grazing area for their livestock,” they argue.
Apart from land occupied by Gaborone, some of the land in dispute includes portions of land where Phakalane Estates is built, including Ruretse and Derick Brink’s farm.
Now that their land had been usurped, they claim that they “virtually have no cattle posts and the few Batlokwa tribesmen who have cattle have the unfortunate and undesirable difficulty of having no pastures for their livestock”.
They add that the few farmers have their cattle roaming around the city in search of pastures but in the process they are confiscated by the city council authorities who return them only after a fine has been imposed.
The Batlokwa further plead for relief, saying that they have no residential land for further development.
Giving a historical background to the land right claims, they say the vast land they had settled on was offered to them by the Bakwena tribal leader, Kgosi Kgari Sechele I after the Mfecane War in the 19th century.
However, the land was later surrendered to the colonial government after a dispute arose between the Batlokwa and Sechele’s successor Kgosi Sebele. Matters came to a head after the enactment of the Tribal Land Act, No 54 of 1968, when the Batlokwa, like most of the tribes in the country, lost control over land.
Land administration was transferred from the chiefs to the Land Boards. The Batlokwa argue that despite the Act, the Tlokweng Land Board at the time was seen as performing the same duties as the chief - holding land for the benefit of the tribe.
But now it holds it for “citizens throughout the whole country. The Batlokwa tribal land has essentially been expropriated and given to the 2nd Respondent (Tlokweng Land Board) without any compensation to Batlokwa, contrary to section 8 of the constitution”.
The historical background to the case is derived from scholars, oral tradition and perusal of the colonial administrations’ records.
The declaration of Tlokweng as a planning area in 1984 under the Town and Country Planning Act also harmed the argument of the Batlokwa for land rights.
This, they argue, was done without sufficient consultation and dialogue between the government and the tribe. Government, through the Tribal Land Amendment Act of 1993 hammered the final nail on the coffin.
The Act, they contest, lifted the “limited protection” the tribe had over ‘further’ loss of land. The Batlokwa dislike the Act for forcing them to compete for land with citizens from all corners of the country.
Through the 1993 Act, control, allocation, use and ownership of tribal land was now vested in Land Boards. Batlokwa are even irked by the fact that the Land Board does not even have to consult with the tribe in the administration of land.
The Batlokwa are represented by Gabriel Kanjabanga of Kanjabanga and Associates law firm and government by the Attorney General.
It was not clear at the time of going to press whether government would contest the case or not.
“Yes, we have a case of that kind but I have to look at it first in order to give you factual information on our position regarding it,” said Deputy Attorney General, Abraham Keetshabe, late Thursday afternoon.
