By Stefanus Nashama
Two days ago, Namibia commemorated Heroes’ Day on 26 August, remembering the first military encounter between the South African army and members of SWAPO, Namibia’s liberation movement, at Omugulugwombashe in the Tsandi constituency of the Omusati Region in 1966.
The commemoration once again brought into focus a longstanding debate over how Namibia recognises those who contributed to the liberation struggle, particularly perceptions that people who fought or supported the struggle from outside the country have received greater recognition than those who resisted apartheid and supported the liberation struggle from inside Namibia.
Responding to the debate, former national assembly speaker Peter Katjavivi who had left the country to serve as the ruling SWAPO Party’s representative in the United Kingdom and Western Europe in 1968, rejected the notion that one group of veterans should receive preferential treatment over another.
He said the liberation struggle was fought on several fronts, with different groups of Namibians making contributions in different ways.
Katjavivi explained that the struggle involved political and logistical mobilisation, training outside the country, internal resistance within Namibia, the armed liberation struggle and a diplomatic campaign aimed at securing international solidarity and isolating the apartheid South African regime.
“As you can imagine, all Namibians of good- will had all hands-on deck,” Katjavivi said.
He maintained that the different forms of resistance should be viewed as interconnected components of the broader struggle for namibia’s freedom and independence.
“Therefore, given all these factors, there cannot be preferential treatment for one or the other,” he added.
Looking beyond the liberation struggle, Katjavivi noted that many Namibians who did not participate in the war have since been given opportunities to serve in government and contribute to national development.
“This tells you something that we liberated the country so that all Namibians can contribute freely to nation-building without preference or prejudice. He added that Namibia should also focus on identifying the gaps that continue to hinder economic emancipation and prosperity.
“Our objective is to better the socioeconomic situation in the country. Namibia’s future is certainly bright. The younger generation needs to put in more dedicated effort towards nation-building,” he said.
He compared the country’s current economic challenges to the liberation struggle, saying the nature of the enemy has changed.
“We fought the liberation war where the enemy was clearly visible. Now we are fighting the economic war, which is more complex to deal with. We need to harness innovations so as to utilise our resources much better for the good of the country.”
SWAPO veteran and former Robben Island political prisoner Jerry Ekandjo alluded to what he describes as unfairness in the process of recognising Namibia’s war veterans.
Ekandjo argues that many people who played a significant role in sustaining the liberation struggle inside Namibia have not been recognised as war veterans.
He questioned whether the current selection process adequately considers the experiences and contributions of those who were part of SWAPO’s internal and regional leadership before independence.
“These people rejecting war veterans’ applications were small babies and were not part of the SWAPO leadership until 21 March 1989, when the UN came here to implement Resolution 435,” Ekandjo said.
He said he is currently compiling a list of people who served as SWAPO internal and regional leaders inside the country before independence.
According to Ekandjo, the list will be submitted to the ministry of defence and veterans affairs, with the aim of ensuring that people with firsthand knowledge of the liberation struggle served on the Selection Board.
“I will send these names to defence and veterans affairs ministry, because in most cases, when people apply for recognition, they are rejected and appeal. When they appeal, none of those on the Board were from inside the country, and if they were, they were small during that time,” he explained.
Ekandjo said many former liberation struggle participants approach him after their applications for recognition are rejected.
He further claimed that in some regions, members of the Selection Board seek information from regional councillors, whom he described as being too young to have witnessed or participated in the events of the liberation struggle.
Ekandjo also emphasised the role played by those who remained inside the country, saying they helped organise and support people who later went into exile.
Another former cabinet minister Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana, one of Namibia’s prominent female veterans of the liberation struggle who left for exile in 1974, said she could not confirm whether veterans who fought in exile had received preferential treatment compared with those who remained inside the country.
“I have been out of offices for some time, therefore I cannot really tell if that is true. However, people have the right to share those perspectives,” Iivula-Ithana said.
She acknowledged that the government has made efforts to address the needs of veterans, but said there are limits to what financial or
material support can achieve for those who suffered personal losses during the war.
“I know the government has tried to deal with that issue by addressing the needs of the heroes and heroines. But if a woman lost her children in the war, even if the government offers her something, that will not take away the fact that those children are no more there,” she added.
She also raised concerns about the processes used to identify and register people claiming to be veterans of the liberation struggle.
Iivula-Ithana questioned whether some officials responsible for registering and interviewing veterans have sufficient historical knowledge to understand the experiences of those who fought for Namibia’s freedom.
Defence and veterans affairs minister Frans Kapofi, who is also a war veteran of the liberation struggle, declined to comment on the issue. “Not this time my dear friend,” he said.
