How, when, where and why could the Namibian government got and/or gotten it all wrong?
These remains four of the biggest pertinent questions, among a plethora of questions, regarding the untenable but indeed by no means irreversible and inextricable situation, in which the demand of the Ovaherero and
Nama for justice pertaining to their GENOCIDE, has been indifferently and negligently, if not maliciously and deliberately intentionally diverted and driven into.
For sure there can’t be any other perspective and/or logical conclusion, at least in the eyes, dissection, digestion and understanding, let alone imagination of the descendants of the forebears who survived the GENOCIDE committed by Imperial Germany reaching its peak between the years 1904-1908.
The years 1904-1908, being but just mere culminations of a hosts of human rights violations, punctuated by many atrocities since the advent of occupational colonial penetration led by traders and missionaries.
Peaking into two extermination orders, one in 1904 against the Ovaherero, and the other against the Nama in 1905.
These questions, how, when, where and why cannot but come naturally given the cul-de-sac in which the demand has been rendered into.
In view of the seeming hidden agenda of the Namibian government, that initially pretended to genuinely champion the cause on behalf of the descendants, as per the 2006 Resolution of the Namibian National Assembly.
A resolution that implored the Namibian government to raise the demand for restorative justice with the German government.
Thereby facilitating a process, whereby the descendants as successor victims, would directly engage the Berlin government.
Early with and in the beginning of the facilitation process in 2015, as initiated by the Namibian government, in 2016 it enlisted what one would believe must have been a formidable European legal team.
Formidable in that the descendants and their government were to embark on uncharted territory of challenging a former colonial power to account for the despicable colonial acts.
For a horrendous act such as GENOCIDE.
That was then undefined for that matter, as a crime against humanity.
Worst, if you wish, this challenge was being initiated by an insignificant, let alone little heard of and/or known African government.
Against Europe’s superpower.
Thus, needless to mention, legal minds of repute were needed.
And must have been acquired.
This is exactly what gives rise to the pertinent questions cognisant of the fact that indeed a monstrous amount was paid to British lawyers in this regard.
Did the lawyers deliver or nor?
They must have delivered taking into account the amount involved, and which the Namibian government coughed up and out.
Thus, one would want to believe the legal opinion of the legal team in question cannot and should not be the missing link.
The ball must be in the Namibian government own’s court.
This is where matters and things must have gone wrong, as indeed telling from the eventual outcome of the so-called negotiations, which have been going on between the two governments since 2015.
This outcome being the dreaded Joint Declaration (JD) presented in 2021.
As a descendant I cannot be oblivious of and to the reluctance of the Namibian government to the issue of the GENOCIDE of the Ovaherero and Nama.
Going back to 2004, the centenary commemoration.
When official presence at the commemoration was and seemed just an afterthought.
Manifested in a low-key presence of then President-elect Hifikepunye Pohamba.
But regarding the process itself a key aspect has since been missing and continues to till this day.
This is the transparency surrounding the process from the word go.
When the descendants were invited after the fact as participants in structures, some if not most and/or all of them insignificant in terms of major and critical decisions.
Reducing the presumed representatives of the descendants to mere spectators in their own cause.
Till today this is the situation that has been prevailing.
One cannot but emphasise transparency as one of the key aspects in various human rights legal instruments and/ or humanitarian law.
In fact the 2006 Resolution alluded to earlier was crystal clear about this.
In that the Namibian government had to convene a national conference of all descendants before the beginning of any envisaged process of facilitation.
This would have, needless to say, presented the first interface regarding transparency in this matter.
But the said conference was never.
Thus, this could turn out to have been the first critical misstep of the Namibian government.
Which down the line the government has not in any away other than superficial been able to rectify.
Last but not the least the JD has been for five years on the table now.
But to say the least its content to this day is unknown as it remains under wrap.
Which again violates an important if not pivotal tenet of the process, transparency.
Meaning the JD under wraps as it has been and is, is and has not been open and subject to scrutiny. Least that of the descendants.
That is if it ever still exists.
How then can it be measured against any guiding principles and standards of reparations.
The critical one which is the quantum of the reparation damages.
It goes without saying that if the descendants never had any confidence in the process, how can they have any in the end product, which is the JD?
