STATE ATTORNEY PROTRACTS CKGR CASE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GABORONE 000666 SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPT FOR AF/S HOFSTATTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV BC SAN CKGR SUBJECT: STATE ATTORNEY PROTRACTS CKGR CASE REF: A. GABORONE 162 ¶B. GABORONE 600 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Hearings in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) relocation case resumed on May 3 but proceeded slowly due to the state counsel's delay tactics. According to First People of the Kalahari (FPK),it has been betrayed by the Indigenous Land Rights Fund, which has yet to turn over the USD 200,000 it allegedly raised during an autumn 2004 tour of the US by San leader Roy Sesana. Although the GOB reportedly has allowed fifty more San to return to the CKGR this year, a proposed Constitutional amendment suggests that the GOB intends to permanently remove all San from the Reserve. END SUMMARY -------------- STATE COUNSEL DRAGGING HIS FEET -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Hearings in the court case challenging the GOB's relocation of residents from the CKGR (Ref A) resumed on May 3 and are scheduled to continue until June 16. Members of the FPK and its legal team complained to PolOff on May 11 of the blatant delay tactics employed by lead state counsel Sidney Pilane to prolong the hearings. Pilane reportedly has made last-minute changes to the state's witness list, which slowed the cross-examination of these witnesses. He also has refused to provide copies of exhibits produced by the state for the reference of state witnesses, which again retards the cross-examination process because the witness has no copies of the documents cited by the counsel for FPK. The bench admonished the two attorneys to sort out the matter between themselves before breaking for lunch on May 11. When FPK's lead attorney, Gordon Bennett, requested Pilane's assistance, Pilane refused and shouted, "Get out of my face!" -------------- ATMOSPHERE OF ANIMOSITY -------------- ¶3. (SBU) This outburst reflected the increasingly acrimonious atmosphere within the courtroom. What is clear to both sides is the GOB's strategy of exhausting the FPK's defense funds through dragging out the proceedings. The state's first witness was patently uncooperative under cross-examination. Although the bench encouraged him once to provide direct answers to questions, he continued in the same manner without further intervention from the judges. The bench had to interrupt proceedings on May 11 to warn attorneys for both sides to control their tempers. In an interview for a local newspaper, Roy Sesana and Jumanda Gakelebone of the FPK reportedly complained that the justices had allowed the proceedings to deteriorate into "a circus." -------------- FPK BETRAYED BY INDIGENOUS LAND RIGHTS FUND -------------- ¶4. (SBU) FPK representatives told PolOff on May 11 that the Indigenous Land Rights Fund (ILRF) had "ripped (them) off" by taking them on a so-called fund-raising tour to the US in August and September of 2004. Sesana and colleagues complained that ILRF leader Rupert Isaacson misled them about the nature of their schedule and accommodations (they reportedly ended up sleeping in tents, on couches, and in shelters). More significantly, Isaacson had told Sesana that he had gathered pledges worth USD 200,000 to support the FPK court case and to assist residents of the CKGR. Only USD 6,000 has arrived so far and Isaacson has not contacted the FPK since October 2004. Survival International remains the sole financial supporter of the FPK in its litigation. FPK believes that Survival will see the case through to its conclusion. -------------- SOME SAN RETURN TO CKGR - FOR NOW -------------- ¶5. (U) The ongoing legal proceedings notwithstanding, both the GOB and the opponents of the relocation are taking matters into their own hands. According to Mr. Gakelebone, approximately fifty more San have returned to live in three different settlements within the CKGR this year. Mr. Gakelebone indicated that Wildlife and National Parks officials did not disrupt their efforts to move back to the Reserve. Mr. Sesana told a local reporter that the Government would have to shoot San to prevent them from returning because they are determined to do so. ¶6. (SBU) The Government appears to be covering all its bases by proposing a constitutional amendment that would rescind a clause on which FPK's case relies (Ref B). If the High Court rules in favor of the FPK on the grounds that the relocation violated Section 14.3.C of the Constitution, its deletion would prevent the GOB from having to reverse its relocation policy. Although the GOB is not preventing San from returning to the CKGR now, it seems evident that it intends to relocate the remaining residents after the conclusion of the court case. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶7. (SBU) FPK's reported difficulties with the ILRF demonstrates their multifaceted vulnerability. The victims of racial discrimination in Botswana, the San also have been used by foreign NGOs who can generate publicity and/or funds for themselves through claiming an association with their cause. It also demonstrates that ILRF is not necessarily a reliable source of information about the situation of the San in Botswana. HUGGINS