By Koviao Matuzee
German foreign minister Johann Wadephul’s latest diplomatic tour of Africa has sparked questions over the absence of Namibia from his itinerary, despite the country’s long-running reparations discussions with Germany over the 1904–1908 Ova-herero and Nama genocide.
Descendants of the Ovaherero and Nama communities, against whom Germany issued an extermination order, have expressed anger over Wadephul’s three-nation visit to Mauritania, Nigeria and South Africa, stressing that Germany has a moral and historical obligation to Namibia and that snubbing the nation is a slap in the face to the ongoing negotiations for reparations and restorative justice.
During the trip, Wadephul is expected to strengthen political and economic ties, discuss regional security and promote investment opportunities.
However, his decision not to include Namibia has prompted debate over whether Germany is giving sufficient attention to one of the most sensitive issues in its relationship with the southern African nation.
Germany has previously acknowledged the atrocities committed during the colonial-era genocide and has been engaged in negotiations with the Namibian government over a reparations and reconciliation package.
The process, however, has remained contentious, with many Ovaherero and Nama representatives arguing that affected communities have not been adequately consulted.
Against this backdrop, questions are being raised over whether the foreign minister should have made a stop in Namibia to engage stakeholders and provide an update on the progress of the reparations process, or whether his itinerary reflects broader diplomatic priorities unrelated to the ongoing genocide discussions.
According to activist and descendant of the Ovaherero and Nama genocide, Hirukuevi Ratauka Kaapama, the exclusion of Namibia from Wadephul’s Africa tour is seen by descendant communities as a deliberate act of political avoidance.
“By skipping Windhoek, the German government signals that it prefers to engage in comfortable, forward-looking economic and geopolitical partnerships rather than face the unaddressed historic crimes of the 1904–1908 genocide,” Kaapama said.
He further said that, according to the descendants of the Ovaherero and Nama genocide victims, the omission reinforces a long-standing pattern, adding that Germany actively bypasses the very soil where its colonial forces committed the 20th century’s first genocide.
Kaapama also added that the absence of a visit directly undermines any claim that Germany is serious about resolving the genocide reparations process in good faith, describing it as an evasion of direct accountability.
“Skipping Namibia avoids confronting the mounting, unified opposition from traditional leadership and advocacy groups against the discredited 2021 Joint Declaration,” he said.
He further added that historical justice is actively being sidelined in favour of realpolitik, claiming that while Wadephul’s agenda focuses on green energy, security and trade alliances across West and Southern Africa, the moral obligation owed to the victims of imperial violence is treated as a secondary administrative nuisance.
“By prioritising immediate strategic interests such as raw materials and regional energy security, Germany treats the loss of over 75,000 lives and the total economic ruin of indigenous tribes as a closed chapter, while the descendants continue to live on marginalised land.”
The Landless People’s Movement (LPM) head of the human rights desk, Joyce Muzengua, said Namibia cannot ignore the symbolic significance of being left out of such a visit.
“At a time when the issue of the 1904–1908 genocide remains unresolved, a visit to Namibia would have demonstrated Germany’s continued commitment to strengthening bilateral relations and advancing the process of historical justice,” Muzengua said.
She further said that the absence of a visit inevitably raises questions.
While acknowledging that diplomatic schedules are shaped by multiple priorities, she added that meaningful engagement on the genocide issue requires consistent political commitment.
“We went to court to ensure that, even when both Germany and our government trivialise this matter, the legal process remains in place to proceed.”
She also said that sustainable partnerships are strengthened when historical grievances are acknowledged and addressed sincerely alongside present-day cooperation.
“Contemporary geopolitical and economic issues are undoubtedly important, but they should not come at the expense of historical justice.
Addressing the legacy of the genocide is not merely about the past; it is about reconciliation, dignity and building a relationship founded on mutual respect.”
Muzengua further said that the omission may be interpreted as an indication that historical justice is no longer receiving the level of political attention it deserves.
“For the descendants of the genocide victims, such perceptions can be deeply disappointing and may reinforce concerns that their longstanding quest for justice is being deprioritised. However, we will continue with the fight for restorative justice, even if it takes generations to come.”
According to Chief Fredericks of the !Aman Traditional Authority of Bethanie, he was not aware of the visit and further said that, as a nation, Namibians do not know the agenda points that would be discussed at the tables of the countries that were visited, describing the genocide issue as sensitive and unique.
“My stand is that that is Germany’s prerogative. They can visit whoever they want, so it is very difficult to prescribe for them,” Fredericks said.
He further said that he does not believe the absence of a visit to Namibia sends any message about Germany’s commitment to addressing the genocide reparations process.
“It is our government dealing with this genocide issue, and there are protocols involved in this issue. The talks are still ongoing, so for now, being left out of that particular visit is not going to do any harm,” he said.
Fredericks further added that the omission of the visit was not sidelining historical justice for the genocide, saying that Germany would not have held talks only to sideline the issue in the end.
“It is not sidelining because why should Germany try to sideline it after so many talks? I mean, it is now almost 10 to 15 years that these talks have been ongoing, so I do not think that Germany is deliberately sidelining it,” he said.
He further proposed a separate visit to Namibia, saying that the genocide issue should be dealt with on its own.
“I think we should separate these things. The visit to other African countries was for something else. Our genocide is a very sensitive and unique thing which should be dealt with alone, so I think for us, they should come to Namibia,” he added.
At the time of publication, efforts by Confidente to obtain comment from the German Embassy and key Nama and Ovaherero leaders and representatives yielded limited responses.
Meanwhile, Chief Mutjinde Katjiua, one of the claimants to the position of OvaHerero Paramount Chief, dismissed concerns over Wadephul not visiting Namibia, saying that they currently have no genocide reparations negotiations underway with the German government.
“We have no genocide reparations with the German government. Why should I be bothered with his foreign missions to Africa?” Katjiua told Confidente.
Meanwhile, attempts to interview Chief Hoze Riruako, the other claimant to the OvaHerero Paramount Chief position, were unsuccessful.
The project coordinator for genocide reparations and technical adviser to the Nama Traditional Leaders Association (NTLA), Maboss Johannes Ortman, initially agreed to an interview but did not respond to the questions sent.
Attempts to reach Goab Johannes Isaack, the chairperson and chief of the NTLA, were also unsuccessful.
