Following years of arguing they received a raw deal, Botswana is leveraging a landmark 2025 sales agreement to pursue majority control of De Beers amidst Anglo American's restructuring. As of April 2026, the government is seeking to acquire an 85% stake to transition from a junior partner to controlling owner of the diamond giant. For more details, visit Bloomberg.
Headline: A Nation’s Wealth Beneath the Soil: Is Botswana Getting a Raw Deal From De Beers?
For decades, the relationship between the government of Botswana and the diamond giant De Beers has been touted as the poster child for resource management in Africa. It is a narrative of partnership: Botswana provided the geology, De Beers provided the expertise, and together they transformed one of the world’s poorest nations into a stable, middle-income democracy.
However, as the landmark 2011 sales agreement comes up for renegotiation, a critical question is echoing through Gaborone and global financial markets: Is Botswana actually getting a raw deal?
If Botswana were getting a truly raw deal, we would expect to see underfunded hospitals and crumbling roads. Instead, we see modern infrastructure and universal education. The revenue from diamonds funds 50% of Botswana’s budget.
But the "raw deal" isn't about poverty—it's about lost opportunity.
Consider this: A rough diamond dug in Botswana might be cut in Surat, India, polished in Antwerp, set in New York, and sold to a bride in Tokyo. Of that final retail price (which could be 5x to 10x the rough value), Botswana currently captures only the cost of extraction plus half the rough profit. Following years of arguing they received a raw
President Masisi has drawn a hard line in the sand. He isn't asking for a revolution; he is asking for evolution. He wants:
To understand the current tension, one must acknowledge the history. Unlike many African nations that fell victim to the "resource curse"—where mineral wealth fuels corruption and conflict—Botswana utilized diamond revenues to build infrastructure, fund free education, and develop a thriving tourism sector. The partnership was formalized through Debswana, a 50/50 joint venture between the government and De Beers.
For years, this seemed equitable. But critics argue that the world has changed, and the contract has not kept pace. The core of the dispute lies not in the mining of the diamonds, but in their journey after they leave the ground.
Is Botswana getting a raw deal? Not compared to most resource-rich nations in Africa, which often see zero benefit from their minerals. Compared to the theoretical ideal—where a nation owns 100% of its resources and the downstream value chain—yes, Botswana is leaving billions on the table.
The coming months are critical. If Botswana secures a deal that gives it control over independent sales and a higher percentage of rough stones, it will set a new precedent for global resource nationalism. If it caves, the "gold standard" might start to look a little tarnished.
For now, Gaborone holds the cards. The question is whether De Beers is willing to pay the price to keep them. A larger share of rough diamonds (up to 60-70%)
What do you think? Should resource-rich nations control their own diamond destiny? Join the conversation in the comments below.
Follow The World News for ongoing coverage of the Africa trade corridors and global commodity markets.
Today, the argument that Botswana is being shortchanged rests on three primary pillars:
1. The Value of the "Run-of-Mine" Sales The current agreement allows De Beers to market the majority of Debswana’s production. The government has argued that the fees and royalties they receive do not reflect the true market value of the stones, especially as De Beers rebrands itself towards "ethical" and "conflict-free" diamonds. Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi has been vocal about this, suggesting that Botswana deserves a larger share of the pie because the diamonds are the foundation of De Beers' global reputation.
2. Beneficiation Limitations While rough diamonds are now aggregated in Botswana, the local cutting and polishing industry struggles to compete with established hubs in India and Israel. Critics argue that De Beers protects its traditional supply chains, leaving Botswana with the low-margin work of sorting while high-margin manufacturing remains offshore. The "raw deal" narrative suggests that Botswana is doing the heavy lifting of extraction while the true wealth generation happens elsewhere.
3. Market Dynamics and Monopoly Power For decades, De Beers held a near-monopoly on global diamonds. Today, that monopoly has eroded due to the rise of synthetic (lab-grown) diamonds and competition from Russian giant Alrosa. As De Beers’ market power wanes, Botswana is re-evaluating its reliance on the company. Some analysts argue that De Beers needs Botswana’s high-quality gems more than Botswana needs De Beers, and the current contract does not reflect this shifting leverage. Practical indicators to judge whether Botswana gets a
The current renegotiation is arguably the most significant in the partnership's 54-year history. Botswana’s President, Mokgweetsi Masisi, has taken a hardline stance, suggesting the government could walk away if terms do not improve.
Why the aggression now? Because Botswana finally has leverage. De Beers' supply from other major sources, like South Africa and Canada, has dwindled. Furthermore, sanctions on Russian diamonds (Alrosa) have tightened global supply. Botswana is currently the world’s largest producer of diamonds by value. Without Botswana’s output, De Beers would struggle to maintain its dominance in the market.
Negotiations for a new deal have been ongoing for over a year, and they have turned ugly.
Botswana is not asking for a tweak; it is asking for a revolution. President Masisi wants the state to leap from a passive mining partner to the apex predator of the value chain. He wants a dramatically increased share of rough stones—up to 50% of Debswana’s production—to be sold to the state directly. Furthermore, he wants those stones sold not to De Beers, but to a burgeoning local cutting, polishing, and jewelry manufacturing industry.
In short, Gaborone wants to become Antwerp or Mumbai. It wants to process the diamonds where they are dug.
De Beers, now majority-owned by Anglo American, is resisting. They argue that the global diamond market is fragile. They claim that flooding a landlocked country with rough stones that cannot be sold for top dollar would destroy value. Privately, industry insiders admit that De Beers is terrified of a precedent. If Botswana takes control of its own supply, what stops Canada, South Africa, or Namibia from doing the same?