In 1961, Botswana set aside the Central Kalahari Game Reserve both to protect wildlife and to give San communities a place to continue their traditional way of life. Decades later, a government plan offers a possible path for those communities to regain recognized rights to their ancestral lands.
The proposal follows a long struggle over land and return. Starting in the 1990s, Botswana relocated San residents to settlements outside the reserve, citing conservation and the cost of providing public services. Some people left through government programs; others resisted. After basic services were withdrawn in 2002, further removals led to a lengthy legal fight.
In December 2006, the High Court ruled for Roy Sesana and other San applicants, finding they had been unlawfully deprived of possession of their land. The decision was a landmark, but it did not settle the broader question of Indigenous land rights in the reserve. Many San people continued to face economic and social hardship after relocation.
A change in government opened a new route for addressing those claims. President Duma Boko, a former human rights lawyer involved in the San people’s legal struggle, took office in November 2024. In March 2025, his administration formed an interministerial committee to examine relocation, land claims, cultural rights and the possibility of return. The committee began consulting affected communities.
The government later approved a land restitution roadmap, according to Michael Taylor, executive director of Anthropos Africa, a nonprofit that works with communities and the government. The proposed approach would keep the reserve protected while giving Indigenous communities legally recognized land rights and a role in conservation and management. Anthropos has described a four-phase process: building community representation, negotiating land rights, changing laws and setting up shared conservation management.
Justice Minister Nelson Ramaotwana said the government intends to establish legal protections before the 2029 elections. He has also called for Indigenous representatives to take part in public institutions, including Parliament, district councils and land boards. The plan could therefore reach beyond the reserve, giving San people a stronger voice in decisions that affect their lives.
But a roadmap is not the same as restitution. Key questions remain: whether rights will belong to individuals or communities, which laws must change, how San representatives will shape reserve management and whether communities will receive a meaningful share of tourism and conservation income. The United Nations and Indigenous rights groups have stressed that secure land rights and real participation in decisions will matter as much as a formal promise to return.
For San communities whose legal and political struggle has lasted decades, the government’s new direction is a significant opening. Whether it becomes lasting change will depend on the laws adopted and the role communities have in shaping them. The reserve’s future may show whether wildlife protection and Indigenous rights can be advanced together.