Since the passing of Dr Zedekiah Joseph Tjitana Ngavirue, the former special envoy on the Ovaherero-Nama genocide, on 24 June 2021, this important responsibility has not yet been officially reassigned to anyone else.
Efficiency, justice
An envoy is a temporary high-level special representative or diplomat who carries out an assignment by advising and advocating for a specific cause. Thus, their role involves conveying high-level knowledge, fairness and consistency in approach. The late Ngavirue left behind a highly contested, incomplete agreement on the Ovaherero-Nama 1904-1908 genocide, especially regarding fair and equitable reparations. Due to the vacuum he left, the ongoing but faltering negotiations are now evident in frustrating bickering and a stalled, highly contestable agreement.
These negative factors cast doubt on, and could jeopardise, the conclusion of a long-awaited and critically important settlement.
Delivering the keynote address at the inaugural Genocide Remembrance Day, 28 May 2025, President Nandi-Ndaitwah emphatically stated that “negotiations with Germany regarding the [Ovaherero-Nama] 1904-1908 genocide are not yet concluded, and nothing is agreed until everything is finally agreed and (that) the Namibian government remains open to further dialogue to reach a satisfactory conclusion”.
Therefore, the question is, if the genocide negotiations are currently taking place, who is facilitating the dialogue on behalf of the Namibian government between the affected communities and the German government?
As is evident, without a legitimate envoy, we are not a step closer to procedural fairness and justice. The start of the Namibian-German negotiations in 2015 about the 1904-1908 genocide marked a turning point after more than a century of denialism by the German government.
Germany had colonised Namibia from 1884 until 1915. But evidently, the negotiation process started late in relation to others and has remained fuzzy with the roles of the marginalised communities and their legitimate representatives buried underneath the political and administrative bureaucracies. This crisis is delaying justice for the affected communities, because most of the immediate genocide sufferers and survivors, such as my great-grandparents and their children and their children’s children, have passed on, or are passing on, without feeling or seeing a slither of justice.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Role of envoy
In modern times, it is well understood that there are four different types of justice: distributive (determining who gets what), procedural (determining how fairly people are treated), retributive (based on punishment for wrongdoing), and restorative (which tries to restore relationships to “rightness”).
It is the responsibility of the envoy to fully ensure the application of justice.
It is also the responsibility of the Namibian government and the special envoy to ensure that justice in all forms is realised.
What is for sure is that there has always been consensus in the country about the broad demands towards Germany’s recognition of the genocide, an apology and reparations.
This is so even though there have been considerable controversies about the Namibian government’s role and the legitimacy of its representatives at the negotiations amongst the affected communities. The former is reportedly due to un- or self-interested officials not upholding the interests of the affected communities, evidenced through personal monetary benefits coupled with poor consultations with the affected communities and poor service delivery. Altogether, these factors constitute a toxic potion. Therefore, the role of a special envoy primarily involves facilitating dialogue and negotiations relating to the genocide orders and atrocities committed during the German colonial period.
This envoy’s role includes addressing the legacy of these tragic events, seeking reconciliation, potentially negotiating reparations and other forms of redress and acting as a liaison between the Namibian and German governments, as well as between the Namibian government and the affected communities, to ensure open and consistent dialogue and aim to achieve consensus.
The ancient concept of envoys and the four core principles of diplomacy, negotiation, communication, building relationships and promoting interests serve as the foundation for effective diplomatic interactions, facilitation, peaceful resolution of conflicts and promoting international cooperation.
How does the Namibian government envisage proceeding and achieving this arduous task without a legitimate special envoy? It is apt to quote this common idiomatic expression: ‘Everyone makes mistakes, but if you make the same mistakes twice, it’s no longer a mistake; it’s a choice’.
Admittedly, during the past negotiations, a set of defects has been identified that had boomerang effects on the ongoing negotiations. Therefore, it would only be advisable to appoint a legitimate special envoy to reassess and redirect the negotiations for the final solution, and to establish a mechanism for accountability and reporting to ensure that the actions, agreements and decisions taken are aligned with the desired objectives of all stakeholders.
It has been a complete 10 years since the genocide negotiations started in 2015, but without tangible results, and the clock is ticking.
Defects
Defects in the current genocide negotiations, particularly in the context of the German-Namibian talks, often stem from a lack of adequate representation of affected communities at the negotiating table, exclusion of affected communities in diaspora, lack of transparency, a reluctance or refusal to acknowledge full legal responsibility and to offer appropriate reparations. These issues have led to a lack of legitimacy of the process and hinder genuine reconciliation and reparations.
As such, the affected communities feel their voices are not being heard, and that any agreement reached without their concern is “a continuation of colonial power dynamics”.
However, this can also re-traumatise the affected communities and perpetuate feelings of marginalisation. The lack of transparency in the negotiation process makes it difficult for communities to understand the terms and legitimacy of the agreement and assess concomitant implications. Open communication and dialogue with all stakeholders are essential for building trust and ensuring that any agreement is perceived as legitimate and just.
However, Namibia – before being condemned to political impotence and irrelevance – must be strategic, efficient and effective in its approach to be able to organise and seek technical support of the international community, particularly the United Nations (UN), to intensely advocacy for reparations, both in terms of material compensation and symbolic acts of acknowledgment in the shortest time possible.
In conclusion, while the term ‘special envoy’ may have evolved, the underlying concept of a special representative appointed for a special purpose remains a valuable tool in international relations and diplomacy. Therefore, they offer flexibility and specialisation, and can effectively complement traditional diplomatic efforts, particularly in complex and challenging situations, such as the 1904-1908 Ovaherero and Nama genocide negotiations and reparations. Against this backdrop, needless to say, a legitimate special envoy and a special commitment to resolving this cause will be catalysts in the negotiations and the long-awaited resolution.
*Maj. Gen. (Rtd) J. B Tjivikua is a descendant of victims of 1904-1908 genocide.