Yarukeekuro Steven Ndorokaze

Let us revisit 1948, when the British mandate over Palestine had just ended, followed by the declaration of the State of Israel, an idea pushed by the Jews who were determined to assert their rights there. Certainly seen as a progressive move in the eyes of some, and an addition to the global community of nations. 

On the southern tip of Africa, the National Party had taken reigns in South Africa and ushered in the ill-conceived and inhumane apartheid system, extending it to South-West Africa, now Namibia. This was so while the nations of the world adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights later that year, representing an unequivocal expression of the need to safeguard the rights of all people regardless of their origin, race, sex or background. 

South Africa had missed the turn and was headed the wrong way, with subsequent isolation and its arraignment before the International Court of Justice by Ethiopia and Liberia in 1960, for its unlawful occupation of Namibia. Although the Court dismissed the case, the United Nations terminated South Africa’s mandate over Namibia in subsequent year,s and it was effectively rendered a lone voice, with behind-the-scenes support from some regressive powers of the West.  

That South Africa is well in the past, fortunately. It must have either retraced its way back to the wrong turn of 1948, or found alternative detours along the way back to civilisation, and 1994 was a key point.  The present-day South Africa could not sit idle and watch the daily perpetuation of Genocide by Israel against Palestine. 

From 11 to 12 January 2024, the world virtually paused to take account of the evil deeds caused by the evidently blood-thirsty Israel. With its well-assembled legal team, South Africa comfortably demonstrated why the human destruction engineered by Israel, as retaliation to the attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023, was on all fours relating to Genocide. Major takeaways were the clear distinction between atrocities, and the narrow definition of what constitutes Genocide.  We can certainly draw lessons from that for the Ovaherero and Nama Genocide claims. I must mention the impressive display by Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (SC) on Israel’s express genocidal intent, demonstrating that Genocide can’t be collateral, but there must be a clear intent to destroy whether whole or in part of a group of people.

On its part, Israel’s legal team spent a lot of the allocated time on vilifying and defaming Hamas. This was not entirely surprising, as it was laid bare and left with nowhere to hide. In any other court, they would have been reminded that the challenge was never about Israel having been attacked, or its right to defend itself and its citizens. Some lukewarm attempts were made to refute the fact that there was a dispute between it and South Africa, despite the evident fact that they were on the opposite ends of the application of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed a few months after the declaration of the State of Israel. 

Another unimpressive effort was to disassociate Israel from the statements of its senior officials, arguing that such pronouncements were not sanctioned by the appropriate structures of governance.             

Whatever the Court’s outcome will be, for once Israel, which hitherto appeared to be above the law, has been called out, in no uncertain terms, to account to the international community for its destruction of humanity. Despite its shyish and half-hearted attempt to remain unfazed in the wake of the overwhelming global condemnation, the hope is that its conscience will soon revisit it, and it will cease the evident genocidal intent and action. 

So, how did Israel end up here, having been established at a time when the world became firmer on the protection of the rights of all? 

As if that is not enough, having the once- delinquent South Africa call them to order? Indeed, South Africa and Israel have traded places on the international scene, and Israel needs to be reminded that it is on the wrong path. 

Oops, from nowhere and without any public invitation, screams Germany on 12 January 2024. Germany, which Germany? Well, the one that on 12 January 1904 set in motion its plan to dispossess and displace Ovaherero from their possessions and land, culminating in explicit extermination orders against Ovaherero and Namas. 

The German Federal Government’s spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit was quoted as indicating that Germany will join the main challenge in support of Israel. I guess that’s because Germany knows the commission of Genocide more than any other State around, especially the part where one denies it after the fact. 

It has a 120-year-old Genocide ghost that refuses to go to permanent sleep, and the present definition of Genocide was influenced by its activities during the Holocaust. Maybe Germany should have some authority over the matter, owing to its checkered past. The only problem is that this Germany is unrepentant, unremorseful and shameless. 

As we are often reminded, every dark cloud has a silver lining. From its unprovoked intervention, Germany has now directed the spotlight to its terrible history, and the urgent need to atone for that. The Namibian Government has received great publicity for its condemnation of the German public display. 

This should be a reminder that Germany never entered negotiations with Namibia sincerely and with genuine regard for the Ovaherero and Namas. In any case, the reported Joint Declaration between the two States initialed in May 2021 is a “stillborn” and fatally incurable for want of participation of representatives of Ovaherero and Namas. Representatives selected and appointed by the Ovaherero and Namas.  This is so, even if Germany was to double the reported €1.8 billion development aid or increase its manifolds. Additionally, this matter can’t be closed by Namibia and Germany, as the descendants of those uprooted and displaced by the German genocidal acts are in places beyond Namibian jurisdiction. 

Germany is demonstrably an unashamed offender of international law, and Namibia should guard against being an unwitting accomplice, as the troubled Joint Declaration violates international law on process, form, content and substance. It is not too late to start the process anew with adequate and real representation of the Ovaherero and Namas in Namibia and around the world.

*Yarukeekuro Steven Ndorokaze is a career journalist and legal practitioner. The views expressed here are his own.