Botswana’s former president defends shoot-to-kill policy for poaching
Ian Khama says shoot-to-kill is not shoot-on-sight, and says poachers should be warned of the risks they face targeting Botswana’s wildlife
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Botswana’s Former President Lt Gen Ian Khama this week defended a controversial shoot-to-kill policy used by its army, the Botswana Defence Forces (BDF), against suspected poachers.
Lt Gen Khama said that “the shoot to kill policy is an operational procedure adopted by most countries and their security forces around the world, and applied depending on the situation at hand. It is not unique to Botswana.
“An example of such a situation is where armed officers assigned to protect a VIP are confronted by an assassin, will draw their weapons and shoot to kill the assailant to save the life of the VIP,” said Lt Gen Khama, Botswana’s president from 2008 to 2018.
“They are normally trained to fire two rounds in quick succession at the attacker to make sure he goes down and poses no more threat as he would if wounded.”
The former President and Army Commander also drew an analogy between the situations the BDF anti-poaching unit finds itself in, and that of a civilian who finds themselves in a kill or be killed situation. He says other similar situations include those of terrorists, and armed robbers among others.
“Poachers who cross the international boundary to shoot wildlife and those who protect [wildlife] are obviously risking their lives because no soldier when confronted by an armed aggressor anywhere will wait to be shot at first when it is his duty to protect himself, others and our national resources,” he said.
Khama says there is no poacher who does not know that in Botswana the wildlife is protected by the BDF who are armed and will open fire to defend what they are deployed to do. Khama, a staunch conservationist, says he urged the authorities in the countries where poachers came from to educate and emphasise to their people the risks they took crossing the border armed and with the intention to kill Botswana soldiers.
“Do not confuse ‘shoot to kill’ with ‘shoot on sight’,” Khama advises. “Shoot to kill is only done in unique circumstances and when one usually has a split second to decide on the threat to themselves and others and is carried out based on instructions and training on orders for opening fire and rules of engagement,” Khama explains.
“Shoot on sight is indiscriminate and without consideration of the necessity whether to open fire or not. It has never been the practice in the BDF.”
Khama would not comment specifically on the recent shooting of Namibians. “I cannot comment as to whether the recent incident which resulted in the deaths of Namibians as reported was justified or not because I do not know the facts around what took place,” he said.
This article is reproduced here as part of the Giants Club African Conservation Journalism Fellowships, a programme of the charity Space for Giants and supported by the owner of ESI Media, which includes independent.co.uk. It aims to expand the reach of conservation and environmental journalism in Africa, and bring more African voices into the international conservation debate. Read the original article here
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments