For many Namibians, land is not merely an economic asset; it is memory, identity, and belonging. Yet more than three decades after independence, the wounds of colonial land dispossession remain largely unhealed. While land reform has been a central policy priority since 1990, Namibia still lacks a legal mechanism to directly address the restitution of ancestral land. 

The result is a persistent sense of injustice among communities whose dispossession predates modern land records, but whose losses continue to shape present-day inequality. Despite extensive consultations and the work of a dedicated Commission of Inquiry, ancestral land rights remain in legislative limbo. This failure to move from acknowledgement to action reflects not an absence of solutions, but an enduring reluctance to confront historical injustice through the law. 

Colonial dispossession, post-independence land reform limits 

Namibia’s land question is inseparable from its colonial history. German and later South African rule resulted in widespread dispossession through forced removals, discriminatory laws, and violent repression. Land loss was not incidental; it was central to colonial domination and economic exclusion, entrenching inequality that continues to shape access to land today. 

Post-independence land reform has focused primarily on redistribution, particularly through resettlement and the acquisition of commercial farmland. While these efforts have benefited some, they were never designed to address ancestral claims. Early policy decisions, including resolutions from the 1991 National Land Conference, rejected restitution on the grounds that ancestral ownership would be difficult to prove and potentially divisive. 

Commission of inquiry: Recognition without resolution 

In response to sustained public pressure, the government established the Commission of Inquiry into Claims of Ancestral Land Rights and Restitution in 2019. The Commission conducted nationwide consultations, giving a voice to communities whose histories of dispossession had long been excluded from formal policy debates. It recognised ancestral land dispossession as a legitimate grievance and recommended a legal framework to address it. 

Key proposals included the establishment of a statutory restitution mechanism, financial compensation where restoration is impractical, access to ancestral graves and cultural sites, and symbolic measures such as memorialisation. 

A draft Ancestral Land Rights and Restitution Bill was subsequently developed, an important and commendable step. 

Due recognition must be given to the administration of the late Dr Hage Gottfried Geingob, for establishing the Commission, and to the Commission itself for the diligence and care with which it fulfilled its mandate. 

However, despite this progress, the Bill has neither been tabled in parliament nor integrated into the broader land reform framework. Five years on, the recommendation remains in legislative limbo, with limited public updates and no tangible outcomes. Once again, recognition has fallen short of remedy. 

Why ancestral restitution remains unfinished 

The reluctance to legislate ancestral restitution is often justified on practical and legal grounds. Concerns include evidentiary challenges , constitutional protections of property rights, and fears of social division. 

These concerns are not insignificant but not insurmountable. 

Comparative experience, particularly South Africa’s restitution framework, demonstrates that restitution does not require a return to the past, but rather a principled and orderly process of redress. 

Namibia’s Constitution already permits expropriation in the public interest, subject to just compensation. What is lacking is not constitutional space but determined political will. 

More fundamentally, the continued exclusion of ancestral restitution risks eroding public trust in land reform and reinforcing the perception that post-colonial justice remains selective. For affected communities, ancestral land claims are not about reclaiming every hectare lost or reversing history. 

They are about dignity, recognition, and belonging. Restitution, whether through land restoration, compensation, or symbolic measures, acknowledges that dispossession was not only economical but profoundly human. Ignoring ancestral claims does not make them disappear. It merely displaces them into political frustration and enduring grievances. 

A clear legal framework for restitution would provide structure and fairness, benefiting both claimants and the State while completing an unfinished chapter of Namibia’s land reform journey. 

Namibia stands at a critical juncture. The nation has listened, consulted, and carefully documented the lived realities of ancestral land dispossession. What remains is the more difficult but necessary step, translating recognition into legislation that is just, transparent, and constitutionally sound. Allowing ancestral land rights to remain in limbo risks undermining the transformative promise of independence. 

For land reform to be genuinely restorative, it must engage history not as an impediment, but as the foundation upon which justice is built. The question is no longer whether ancestral land restitution is possible. It is whether Namibia is prepared to complete the journey it has already begun, a question the current administration must confront, and one the public respectfully urges it to answer. 

*Ndanyama-Elao Amenenge Kalipi is a Namibian legal scholar with a strong interest in land reform, and human rights.