Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

LPM targets foreign landowners 

LPM targets foreign landowners 

A contentious debate is set to unfold in the National Assembly following a bold motion by Landless People’s Movement (LPM) parliamentarian Utaara Mootu. 

It calls for the expropriation of land from foreign absentee landlords without compensation. 

Mootu’s motion challenges the principles of property rights protected under Article 16 of the Namibian Constitution, which guarantees people the right to own property, regardless of nationality. 

“Absentee landlords have benefitted for too long at the expense of native Namibians,” she said while motivating her motion. 

“The post – colonial government, in its current form, serves the interests of foreign nationals residing abroad to the detriment of those whose land was stolen through dispossession,” she asserted. 

The motion calls for the immediate expropriation of agricultural land owned by foreign nationals who are not actively contributing to Namibia’s economy, with no compensation provided. 

Mootu maintained that this approach will rectify historical injustices, and empower ordinary citizens who have long been sidelined in land allocation processes. 

 Resettlement policy 

She then took aim at the recently-tabled National Resettlement Policy 2023-2033, introduced by agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein. 

The policy requires applicants to demonstrate an income flow of up to N$2 million to qualify for resettlement. 

“This policy, in its current form, perpetuates land inequality by catering to wealthy political elites while disregarding the black majority who need land the most. It’s an ultra-right policy that prioritises affluence over need,” she emphasised. 

The parliamentarian argued that the current policy contradicts the government’s stated commitment to equitable land distribution, and instead entrenches class-based privilege. 

Regional context 

Namibia’s historical land dispossession, primarily during German and South African colonial rule, has led to ongoing discussions about how to balance property rights with restorative justice. 

Neighbouring South Africa’s president Cyril Ramaphosa last month signed into law a Bill allowing land seizures by the State without compensation. 

This move has put him at odds with some members of his government. 

The law “outlines how expropriation can be done and on what basis”. 

It replaces the pre-democratic Expropriation Act of 1975, which placed an obligation on the State to pay owners it wanted to take land from under the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ principle. 

In 2018 during a national land policy conference, late president Hage Geingob promised to push forward with expropriating land and redistributing it to the majority black population in the country. 

At the time, he said “many Namibians were driven off their productive land”. 

“We also share a burning land issue and a racialised distribution of land resources with South Africa. This comes from a common history of colonial dispossession. What we also agree to is that the status quo will not be allowed to continue,” Geingob stated at the time. 

Legal perspective 

Legal practitioner Emma Shivute raised concerns about potential violations of international agreements if the motion passes. 

Namibia is a signatory to various international treaties which uphold property rights, including Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948. 

This foundational human rights’ document states that “everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others (Article 17(1)”. 

Article 17(2) declares that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property”. 

Lawyer Henry Shimutwikeni observed that it is a “noble” motion, but will require amending the Constitution. 

“This will require the amendment of article 16 (2). The State can already expropriate land. The only qualification is that they should give just compensation,” he said. 

Contradicting Shivute’s comment, Shimutwikeni said in terms of sovereignty, the Constitution is supreme. 

ashikololo@nepc.com.na