Cases / Protected area / relocation · Botswana · 1997–2006
Botswana court finds San relocation from Central Kalahari unlawful
Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.
Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
- The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
A Botswana court found the relocation of San people from the Central Kalahari unlawful in December 2006. The government's figure for those removed is about 2,000 people. At stake is who may live on and use Central Kalahari land.
What?
San people were removed from the Central Kalahari, and the court found the removal unlawful InforMEA
Where?
Central Kalahari, Botswana InforMEA
When?
1997 to 2006 Mail & Guardian
Who?
Gained
None on recordLost
- San residents of the Central Kalahari — removed from the area; government figure of about 2,000 people Mail & Guardian
Harmed
None on recordWhy?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Removal of San residents from the Central Kalahari Mail & Guardian
6 of 6 questions answered from the record
What happened
The record, in order.
A court decision dated 13 December 2006 found the San relocation unlawful; its summary states that a diamond link was not proven [0].
Mail & Guardian reported that the government put the number of people removed at about 2,000 [1].
In court and with insurers
Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.
Lawsuits and rulings
- 2006-12-13Claimant wonSan relocation case, Central KalahariCourt of Botswana (per InforMEA) · Civil · San residents of the Central Kalahari → Attorney General of Botswana
The court found the San relocation unlawful. Its summary states that a diamond link was not proven. InforMEA
Insurers
No insurer decision on record.
What we don't know
Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
Record
- None on record The sources reviewed do not say who carried out the removal beyond the government figure.
- None on record Who gained from the removal is not stated in the sources reviewed; the diamond-related claim is recorded as not proven, and the party who made it is not stated.
- None on record A 2025 KSAT article on a Botswana-De Beers diamond deal is listed without description; it is not used.
- None on record The outcome after the 2006 decision is not stated in the sources reviewed.
Did the harm stop?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Who paid?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Sources
Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers
Press and investigations
- San relocation found unlawful; diamond link not provenInforMEA · 2006-12-13
- Bushmen win battle for Kalahari homeMail & Guardian · 2006-12-13