Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
FOR what use and for what sake can the joint declaration (JD), or its amended version, really revert or be reverted to, referred to and/or returned to the National Assembly and/or the Namibian Parliament?
Is the question legitimate from any bona fide descendant of the survivors of the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama, among others? It is not so much a legitimate question as a real concern.
Because the paradigm today, especially among the descendants of the survivors of GENOCIDE, is not the JD. Because the JD is a product of a process that the sovereigns in this matter, the descendants, rejected from the word go. Meaning the Namibian government and its German counterpart have all this time been intransigent as far as the issue of genocide, apology and reparations is concerned.
Thus engaging themselves in this matter against the best wishes of the sovereigns. Meaning to these sovereigns the JD has been of no consequence. Thus, equally, it does not matter that its presumably amended version would be submitted to the National Assembly.
To do what with it? As a matter of courtesy and public relations? Because it is a well-known fact that the descendants have never been for the negotiation process when it started eleven (11) or so years ago. Never accepted the JD when it was born five years ago. This is where they are today in 2026. Thus, re-submitting its presumably amended version to the National Assembly makes no sense whatsoever!!!
Similarly, it is as academic and futile engaging in a debate about the would-be second version as it is about the first. But for the benefit of doubt of Her Excellency, her administration, the National Assembly and the general Namibian public, one cannot but briefly indulge in the JD, at least the original version.
Answering a question from the PDM leader during questions’ time from members of Parliament following her state of the nation address (Sona) last Wednesday, the President of the Republic of Namibia, Her Excellency Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, referred to Article 21 of the Joint Declaration.
Actually, from the copy that I have, section V, point number 20 of the original text of the Joint Declaration was reading as follows: “Both governments share the understanding that these amounts [the one point one billion euros – 1.1 billion] mentioned above settle all financial aspects of the issues relating to the past addressed in the Joint Declaration.”
But according to Her Excellency in her answer, the JD presumably has now been structured or restructured. This is to allow ongoing engagement rather than close the issue. According to her, this has opened up the JD to allow Namibia to engage Germany to bring what it offers Namibia on par with what Germany has been offering the Jews for their Holocaust.
Yes, Her Excellency is right that the original version is not the same as the latest version that still remains under wraps. But having had a glimpse of what would be the latest version of the JD, the structured or restructured ala Her Excellency, it’s a matter of interpretations, and one cannot but hesitate: is she indeed being truthful, or may she be misunderstanding or misinterpreting what the actual meaning of the structuring is?
If my memory serves me well, a point has been inserted to the effect that should affected communities identify needs among themselves, they could and may go knocking at the door of Germany.
Meaning, in my interpretation of the said inserted point, unless it has been changed in between, as the latest version has been kept under wraps, the affected communities literally go begging with a begging bowl for help. That Germany may consider favourably or not.
The fact that it would be up to Germany’s discretion to favourably consider or not any plea for further assistance, and assistance must be underlined. Because it would not in this instance be a matter of obligation deriving from the JD but up to Germany’s kindness, charity, generosity and magnanimity. Given this, so much for the avowed open engagement in the JD regime. But the bottom line that we are often not told is that Germany’s offerings under the JD remain at 1.1 billion euros.
Thus, unlike Her Excellency, our Namibian government, her lieutenants and troops would like us to believe that, as far as Germany is concerned, regarding the issue of genocide, apology and reparations, it is business as usual. Development aid cloaked as reparations with the acquiescence of the Namibian government, which has duped a section of the descendants that Germany has acknowledged GENOCIDE and is prepared to pay REPARATIONS. Can what the Namibian government and its German counterpart have been engaged with honestly, even by the narrowest definition, be taken and understood as negotiations for, over and about GENOCIDE and REPARATIONS? Not by any stretch of imagination.
Simply, either our government has been fooled by Germany or it has cowed as a former colonial servant to a colonial master. For the reasons known to itself.
Thereby attempting to drag along the descendants. Who have remained steadfast. The government’s best bet now seems to be the National Assembly. Hence, the pertinent question: FOR WHAT USE?
*Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro is a descendant of the survivors of the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama genocide; a veteran and freelance journalist; a reparations advocate; and an adherent of restorative justice.
