This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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