 |
| Bushman child, Botswana
© Fiona Watson/Survival |
Botswana's high court began hearing the Bushmen's
lawyer present his final arguments yesterday. Lawyer Gordon Bennett
argued that the eviction of the Bushmen was unlawful, unconstitutional
and was done without their consent.
Bennett pointed out that the state had not brought even one of the Gana
and Gwi Bushmen to court to testify that they agreed with their
relocation from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. This, he said, was a
telling omission'.
He also pointed to documents showing that in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999,
2000 and 2001, the Bushmen living in the reserve said they did not want
to move. The government's lawyers had produced no evidence to suggest
that the Bushmen had changed their minds by the time of the evictions
in early 2002. Bennett argued that they moved because they were placed
under intolerable pressure by the government to leave the reserve.'
Bennett noted that the government had withdrawn services from the
Bushmen in the reserve which it itself admitted were basic' and
essential'. He argued that, contrary to the government's claims, the
withdrawal of these services had nothing to do with their cost. That
cost must have paled into insignificance compared to the millions and
millions spent on infrastructure, roads, water supplies and so on at
New Xade and Kaudwane [the government's resettlement camps].'
He also said the government, in illegally withdrawing the Bushmen's
hunting licences, was prepared to break its own law to achieve its
purpose.'
Bennett demonstrated that the evidence of government witnesses was
often unreliable and contradictory, and invited the court to consider
to what extent we can place reliance on any evidence of any of the
government witnesses.'
The arguments are scheduled to continue for the rest of this week.
