botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

Mubukwani and then only the boys used to go to school. We ladies were hindered to go to
school." Namibian Memorial, Vol.III, Annex 2. p.16.
531. Although resolution of the 1925 photograph is poor, minute examination reveals no sign
of any structures which bear any similarity to the appearance of Kasika on this photograph.
There are no signs of agricultural working or grain silos. Ploughed fields are invariably of a
regular square or rectangular shape; the photograph was taken at low water and shortly after
any crops would have been harvested yet there is no sign of ploughed soil which would show
up clearly against the generally dark background of the Island's surface.
532. There is no truth in the allegation that there was a school on the Island. The only school
in the area was established at Kasika and this was set up with the assistance of the British
authorities in the period 1927 to 1929 when the Caprivi Strip was under their administration.
The presence of a school at Kasika (and not on the Island) is established by the following
evidence:
(i) Lists of schools in the Reports of the Government of South Africa on South-West Africa,
for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, to the Council of the League of Nations (see Report for
1927, p.122; Report for 1928, p.107; and Report for 1929, p.67 (Botswana Counter-Memorial,
Annexes 11-13). These refer only to a school at Kasika.
(ii) The South African official Report: Major Trollope, Report on the Administration of the
eastern Caprivi, 1940 (Namibian Memorial, Annex 58, at page 25). This refers only to the
school at Kasika.
(iii) Documents in the Botswana National Archives refer to the school established at Kasika
with support from the British authorities; see the Resident-Commissioner's Report, dated 29
April 1929 (Botswana Counter-Memorial, Annex 14).
(F) General Conclusions
533. The general conclusions on the oral evidence are as follows:
I. Oral evidence is of little, if any, assistance in the present case because it is vague, inaccurate
and, above all, irrelevant.
II. It does not assist the Court in the interpretation of Article III of the Anglo-German
Agreement of 1890.
III. In the circumstances, the Court, in determining the main channel, has to construe the
meaning of the text of the 1890 Anglo-German Agreement on its own.
IV. The evidence of the Namibian witnesses, in particular, is unhelpful as to the exact period
in time the Island was used by their ancestors for subsistence agricultural activities.
V. The evidence of the Namibian witnesses who sought to give the impression that the Island
was used consistently and extensively by their ancestors in the Caprivi flies in the face of the
truth especially when their evidence is read in conjunction with Professor Sefe's Report on the
Sedimentological Study of Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Appendix 3 of this Counter-Memorial)
according to which: