Ancestral Land Issue Is Still On The Agenda

I HAVE always held the opinion that the so-called national consensus reached at the National Land Conference in 1991 was a farce. In my opinion it was stillborn and only delayed the inevitable.

I am referring to one specific ‘consensus’ point that was engineered by Mr Hage Geingob that suggested that Namibians agreed not to entertain any ancestral claims to land rights. As a result of so-called consensus on this matter, subsequent National Land Policy and 2 Land Acts have practically avoided even mentioning the issue of ancestral claims. Now after 20 years, chickens are coming home to roost if one listens to the fight that the Damara-speaking //Naosan /Aes pressure group has mounted around Ongombo farm (The Namibian 9th July 2010), the petition by the Damara-speaking /Khomanin traditional community (Die Republikein 12 July 2010) who lost their ancestral land in the /Khomas Hochland area as recent as 1950s with the proclamation of Daan Viljoen Game Reserve, the discussions being started by the Nama Chiefs (The Namibian 12 July 2010) and salient undertones in Bob Kandetu’s column (The Namibian, 13th July 2010). Saddening questions emerge if one adds to this list the fact that the Herero-speaking Namibians never took the issue of ancestral land off the agenda since independence.For example:Would the government have taken the same lacklustre approach to this matter if the communities traditionally from the communal areas north of the Red Line were the ones that suffered loss of ancestral land at the hands of successive colonial administrations? Would the government have taken such a heavy-handed approach if the people camping in the road reserve next to farm Ongombo were cattle-herders from Ohangwena Region or so-called struggle kids and not the members of the //Naosan /Aes? In fact what is the difference between the struggle kids camping in front of TransNamib in the city centre illegally and the landless community camping in a road reserve for the laws to be applied differently and inconsistently in these two cases? The government spends massive amounts of time, state resources and money in addressing the ‘plight’ of land invaders from Ohangwena who were expelled from the Rukwangali traditional area. Similarly, Government had an arsenal of national and municipal laws to deal with so-called unruly struggle kids who illegally trespassed and squatted on state property (TransNamib) for months but opted to play a political ping-pong in this case. Yet government acted swiftly and heavy-handedly in the case of the //Nasan /Aes pressure group. Would the government have persisted with implementing this dubious land reform and resettlement program if the communities from north of the Red Line were the ones this adversely affected by the resettlement process? Hobatere Concession Area: In 1980s, the then Administration for Damaras displayed an unprecedented foresight and convinced Damara-speaking farmers to forego their farming rights to five Odendaal farms covering 32,000 ha in the former Damaraland west of Etosha. They developed this area (this was the 1980s), called Hobatere, into a tourism concession area as a proverbial nest egg for the Damara-speaking communities. This turned out to be a very successful conservation and tourism area. Hobatere practically forms part of current #Khoadi //Hoas conservancy and even the farmers relocated from Hobatere in the 1980s all currently live in this conservancy. As a result, there was this expectation that #Khoadi //Hoas conservancy was going to receive all concession rights in terms of government’s new policies. However, the Hobatere concession area has been carved up by the government and in order to accommodate politically connected communities and chiefs who did not lose any rights as a result of Hobatere’s creation. The result is that the Damara-speaking communities residing in #Khoadi //hoas, some of whom lost their farming rights, remain with a meagre one-third of the concession rights. Would the government have done this if Hobatere was located in Omusati Region and not in the Kunene Region? Who cares, Kunene Region is run by an opposition party and opposition parties block development. It is also pertinent to note that the government is currently spending several millions on elephant proofing Etosha’s northern border fence which is shared with Omusati, Oshana and Ohangwena Regions while the western boundary with the Kunene Region and southern and eastern boundaries shared with freehold are left out. This also raises serious questions.All these questions and examples gives an impression that Namibian government makes laws, policies and development priorities like in the book, Animal Farm, where all citizens are equal but that some are more equal. At the risk of stating the obvious, political and tribal allegiance is the determining factor. The government clearly knows where the votes come from. The rest is disposable.DesVia e-mailNote: Full name and address provided. – Ed