18 May 2026
In the grand narrative of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, the spotlight often falls — and rightly so — on the gallantry of fighters in the bush, the political leadership in exile and the decisive theatres of war within and around the country’s borders.
Yet, beyond these visible arenas lay a network of quiet enablers whose sacrifices were no less profound.
Among them, the people of Botswana and the Botswana Defence Force (BDF) stand as enduring pillars of solidarity, courage and principled commitment to justice.
Their contribution, stretching from the early 1960s to the attainment of independence in 1980, deserves not only recognition but reverence — and it is a tribute deeply indebted to the vision and leadership of Botswana’s founding president, Sir Seretse Khama.
Inaugural exit route
All Zimbabwean freedom fighters and exiled political leaders who joined the liberation struggle before 1975 did so through Botswana. This applies to both ZIPRA and ZANLA.
Botswana’s role in Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle was not accidental; it was a deliberate moral choice made in a precarious geopolitical context. As a newly independent nation in 1966, Botswana was economically fragile, geographically vulnerable and militarily modest.
Surrounded by hostile or unstable regimes — including apartheid South Africa to the south and the white minority regime in Rhodesia to the east — Botswana could easily have opted for caution and isolation.
Instead, under the principled stewardship of President Sir Seretse Khama, it chose solidarity with liberation movements, becoming a critical transit route and operational base for both ZANLA and ZIPRA forces. Choosing justice over convenience.
This decision placed Botswana directly in the crosshairs of the Rhodesian regime.
The country’s territory became a corridor through which freedom fighters moved, trained and regrouped. Refugee camps and informal support structures emerged, sustained not only by the government’s policy stance but by the compassion and resilience of the ordinary Batswana. Villages near the border bore the brunt of this role, often hosting or assisting cadres under constant threat of surveillance, infiltration and attack.
The Rhodesian response was swift and brutal.
Cross-border raids, aerial bombardments and sabotage missions became frequent occurrences. These were not mere military engagements; they were calculated acts of destabilisation aimed at punishing Botswana for its stance and deterring further support for liberation movements. Civilians were killed, infrastructure destroyed and economic activities disrupted.
The psychological toll on communities living under the constant threat of attack was immense. It is within this context that the BDF emerged as a symbol of national resolve.
Established in 1977, relatively late in the liberation timeline, the BDF was tasked with defending a nation already under siege.
Despite limited resources and a short institutional history, the BDF demonstrated remarkable discipline and courage. Its presence along the borders served as both a deterrent and a reassurance to the citizens that their government would not abandon them in the face of external aggression.
The BDF’s role was not one of offensive warfare but of principled defence. It stood guard over a nation that had chosen justice over convenience, knowing full well the asymmetry of power it faced. In doing so, it embodied the spirit of Botswana’s broader national ethos — quiet, steadfast and unwavering in its commitment to regional liberation.
Enduring the costs
The sacrifices made by Botswana were not limited to military engagements.
The economic cost of hosting refugees, supporting liberation logistics and repairing infrastructure damaged by raids was significant.
For a developing nation with limited fiscal capacity, these were heavy burdens. Roads, schools and health facilities were strained or destroyed.
Trade routes were disrupted and investor confidence was shaken. But Botswana did not retreat from its commitments.
Equally profound was the human cost. Lives were lost — not only among those directly involved in the liberation struggle but among innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
Families were displaced, communities traumatised and a generation grew up under the shadow of conflict.
These are sacrifices that cannot be quantified in economic terms alone; they are etched into the collective memory of a nation that chose to stand on the right side of history.
Botswana’s contribution must be understood alongside that of Mozambique and Zambia. Each of these nations bore unique burdens in the liberation of Zimbabwe, shaped by their geography, political contexts and capacities. Mozambique, under FRELIMO, provided extensive training grounds and direct military support, often facing large-scale incursions from Rhodesian forces. Similarly, Zambia hosted ZIPRA forces and endured repeated attacks on its territory.
The unique quietness of Botswana’s contribution
What distinguishes Botswana’s role is the quietness of its contribution. Without large-scale military infrastructure or expansive training camps, Botswana’s support was often logistical, humanitarian and strategic.
It was the silent corridor through which the struggle flowed — a lifeline that connected internal resistance with external support. Its restraint did not diminish its significance; rather, it underscored a different kind of courage — one rooted in principle rather than power.
In reflecting on this history, it is important to recognise that Botswana’s stance was not universally easy or uncontested. Within the country, there were legitimate concerns about security, economic stability and the welfare of citizens. The government had to balance its moral commitments with the practical realities of governance. That it managed to do so while maintaining internal stability is testament to the strength of its institutions and the resilience of its people.
Astute leadership of President Khama
Central to this balancing act was the leadership of Sir Seretse Khama.
His administration charted a path that upheld international law, regional solidarity and national sovereignty simultaneously. He resisted pressure to capitulate to hostile neighbours, yet avoided reckless escalation that could have plunged Botswana into full-scale conflict.
His legacy is one of measured courage — an understanding that true leadership often lies not in loud declarations, but in steadfast adherence to principle under pressure.
Today, as Zimbabwe enjoys the fruits of independence, it must also carry the responsibility of remembrance. Gratitude should not be a ceremonial gesture confined to anniversaries; it must be an enduring element of national consciousness.
Botswana’s sacrifices are part of Zimbabwe’s liberation story, and acknowledging them is both a moral duty and a foundation for stronger bilateral relations. This tribute is, therefore, not merely retrospective; it is also forward-looking.
In a region still grappling with challenges of governance, economic development and social cohesion, the legacy of solidarity demonstrated during the liberation era offers valuable lessons.
It reminds us that regional cooperation is not a matter of convenience but of shared destiny. The freedom of one nation is inextricably linked to the courage of its neighbours. For the BDF, their legacy is one of honour and quiet heroism.
They stood at the frontlines of a conflict not of their making, defending a principle rather than a territorial ambition.
Their service reflects a broader truth about the nature of liberation struggles: that they are sustained not only by those who fight but by those who support, protect and endure.
For the people of Botswana, the tribute is even more profound.
It is in their homes, their villages and their daily lives that the true cost of solidarity was borne. They shared their limited resources, opened their communities to strangers and lived under the constant threat of violence.
Their courage was not performed on battlefields but in acts of quiet generosity and resilience. As we honour Mozambique and Zambia for their well-documented contributions, we must ensure that Botswana’s role is equally illuminated. History must be inclusive in its remembrance, capturing not only the dramatic but also the subtle, not only the visible but also the unseen.
In the final analysis, Botswana’s contribution to Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle is a powerful reminder that the fight for freedom is rarely confined within national borders. It is a collective endeavour, sustained by networks of solidarity that transcend geography and circumstance.
Botswana stood as a bridge, a shield and a sanctuary — roles that came at great cost but yielded immeasurable impact.
To the people of Botswana, to the BDF and to the enduring legacy of President Sir Seretse Khama, I say your sacrifices did not go unnoticed, even if they were not always loudly proclaimed. They are woven into the fabric of Zimbabwe’s independence. This is testament to the enduring power of solidarity in the face of injustice.
May this tribute serve not only as an acknowledgement of the past but as a reaffirmation of a shared future — one rooted in mutual respect, historical truth and the continued pursuit of justice across the region.
*Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey Makuyana is also a war veteran.
Source: https://shorturl.at/O3dZU
