Whither the reparations?
One cannot but pose the question, because despite apparent moves in government corridors and circles on the matter involving the appointment of various committees, which the government must still announce officially, it is not yet clear whither to with the claim of the affected communities for reparation.
Perhaps once the government comes out publicly and makes an announcement in this regard, the secrecy and uncertainty currently surrounding the issue may be lifted and things may become crystal clear.
Understandably some stakeholder committees have been invited to become part of the government’s technical committee that is to report to another committee, the main committee or political committee, chaired by Vice President Nickey Iyambo.
Ordinarily one would have welcomed the bid by our government in ultimately becoming pro-active and coming out of the starting blocks to eventually take the issue of genocide and reparation to its logical conclusion, if the appointment of the said committees is anything to go by.
However, while these committees still have to be officially announced by the government, until the government comes out publicly about their nature, scope and rubric, the nation at large, and the affected communities in particular, cannot but be suspicious that our government is dealing in good faith with the affected communities to whom it certainly is obligated to act in this matter.
Especially so, given that the participation of the leaders of the affected communities in the various structures, save for the cooption of one or two members of the various technical committees of the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama, on the envisaged government technical committee.
It is now a fact that some of the committees have declined the invitation extended to them presumably by the vice president as the chair of the Cabinet committee on which some ministers reportedly sit. This became clear this week at a media conference held by Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama communities.
At this media conference the leaders of these communities were categorical that the proposed structures are alien to them and their communities as the rightful initiators, vanguard and owners of the claim for reparation, who have been seized with it all these years with subdued and hesitant if not reluctant interest.
The leaders could not have been more categorical with the now adopted popular clarion call that “it cannot be about us, without us.”
Surely, as much as the three technical committees, the Ovaherero Genocide Foundation (OGF), the Council for Dialogue, and the Nama Technical Committee on Genocide, led by Honourable Ida Hoffmann among others, have been spearheading the genocide and reparations campaign, and has thus been the vanguard of the affected communities and their traditional leaders, it is not enough that when the matter is said to have reached a critical and desirable stage – as some quarters perceive – that the leaders of the affected communities must be satisfied with one, two or three representatives on the government’s technical committee.
One wonders at what interface the leaders of the people are being recongised in this matter, because strangely and suspiciously they seem conspicuous in their absence in any of the envisaged structures that have been reported to have been or were being established. In the least they seem not to have been consulted about them.
It cannot be denied that the only people with any legitimate standing regarding the issue of genocide and the attendant issue of reparations are the leaders of the affected communities.
They do not only have a legitimate standing, but also have sole and legitimate ownership of the matter. Thus the Namibian government, a caring and responsible government that it is, do not only have the obligation to advocate and agitate for the resolution of this issue, especially vis-à-vis its German counterpart and partner, but must have the full mandate of the affected communities every step of the way.
It is only these communities who have got a locus standi in this matter not their government. Granted that indeed our government – as a democratically elected government – has a general responsibility and obligation towards its citizens. However, the matter of genocide and reparation is a specific claim of a specific section of its citizenry, based on Germany’s historic responsibility towards the affected communities in this instance.
Be that the case as it may be, the mandate of the affected people to their government has not been and is not clear. Nor has there been any evidence of the government seeking such a mandate from the affected communities.
This notwithstanding, the 2006 resolution of the National Assembly on the matter is categorical that the government should champion the campaign for reparations. The very same resolution is unequivocal though that the affected communities must be active participants in any bid to address and advance the claim for reparations.