Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
This is not an article on the crime of infanticide as such. It is a footnote, as it were, to Schapera's writings on infanticide in Bechuanaland. The intention is not to go into the intricacies and controversies concerning the crime of infanticide. Nor does it suggest that Schapera ever devoted any substantial book or article to infanticide. Rather he referred in passing to instances of infanticide in various articles and books he wrote on Bechuanaland. He indicated that infanticide was practised in Bechuanaland under certain circumstances, as in any other society. However, it was obvious the exact extent of the practice was unknown because the practice was shrouded in secrecy. It was only when a case had been witnessed by a third party or had been reported to the authorities that the matter reared its head. As such the statistics on infanticide are hard to come by and even where they exist they are at best misleading. The note considers the instances referred to by Schapera and comments on a few available cases. It will emerge that these cases were only those which were prosecuted in the European courts. Infanticide took place broadly under the following circumstances:
1 A Handbook of Tswana Law and Custom (1938), 171, 261–2;Google ScholarMarriage Life in African Tribe (1939), 225;Google Scholar“Premarital Pregnancy and Native Opinion: A Note on Social Change” 1933 Africa Vol. 6., 59–91;CrossRefGoogle Scholar“Labour Migration for a Bechuanaland Native Reserve II” 1934 (33) Journal of African Society 49, especially at 52–56.Google Scholar
2 A Handbook, at 261.Google Scholar
3 Ibid.
4 R v. Banyatsan and Chelelo H.C. 293.Google Scholar Banyatsan was delivered of the twins four days previously and had not taken any active part in the killing. On the contrary she was said to have been crying while it was taking place.
5 At page 2 of the Resident Commissioner's report.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 In B.N.A. C/8/729. Some facts not material to the present discussion have been omitted.
9 From the accused's statement to the police contained in the Preliminary Examination in B.N.A. C/8/729.
10 Statement by witness Magabo, Preliminary Examination page 13.
11 Preliminary Examination page 8.
12 Preliminary Examination page 2. The statement is not clear enough. The reference to strangling in the second part could equally have been referring to the deceased mother and child. It is the context in which it is used and its proximity to the statement relating to the twins which gives the impression that it was used in reference to the twins.
13 Witness Magabo at the Preliminary Examination page 13.
14 Ramhilo was sentenced to death and the Resident Commissioner found nothing to recommend him for mercy. He died in prison while awaiting execution.
15 Schapera, n. 1 above.
16 Schapera as above. However, by 1938 Schapera wrote “an illegitimate child is no longer killed, and is allowed to take a full part in the normal tribal life. But it is often insulted and taunted”. See too, “Premarital Pregnancy” at 61.
17 Marriage Life.
18 R. v. Case and Ors. H.C. 106 in B.N.A. C/8/729.Google Scholar
19 Page 1 of the report.
20 They were released because the authorities found it difficult to maintain them in prison as they had to be given “special food” and tobacco and allowed to search for certain roots “which was not always easy to arrange”; page 2 of the report.
21 B.N.A. C/8/729.
22 See Crowder, Michael, The Flogging of Mclntosh: A Tale of Colonial Folly and Injustice, Bechuanaland 1933 (London, 1988), chapter 1, at 36–45.Google Scholar Chief Moremi III's “The Law Relating to Children and Marriage” of 1946 stated that “everyone whose child is seduced by a person must report the matter even if he has no intention to make a case against the seducer. I do not want to hear anything whatsoever about Europeans.” (emphasis added) in B.N.A. C/7/711.
23 Gideon v. Malusalila Civ. Appeal of 15 04, 1948.Google Scholar
24 R. v. Xaru C/7/10/706 (1930).Google Scholar
25 It is not clear on what grounds the accused was acquitted; the report is so scanty.
