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