PAUL T. SHIPALE (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
The legendary revolutionary leader Che Guevara once emphasised that “not an inch of concession to imperialism” was a key principle in the struggle for liberation. In Namibia today, that warning echoes louder than ever as questions of sovereignty, foreign influence, and domestic political opportunism reach a boiling point. At the centre of this moment stands Bernadus Swartbooi, leader of the Landless People’s Movement (LPM), a man whose recent political behaviour raises alarms far beyond ordinary opposition politics.
Swartbooi’s now-infamous letter to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. President Donald Trump requesting American intervention to halt Namibian elections and seeking asylum for his supporters is not simply a misstep. It is a direct betrayal of Pan-African principles and a dangerous invitation for foreign interference. While the U.S. is unlikely to act, it will certainly observe the instability such appeals create – precisely the sort of instability foreign powers have historically exploited for strategic gain.
A disturbing pattern emerges
The concerns, however, do not end there. The speculation and conspiracy theory of the idea to separate the Western and Northern Cape together with the two southern regions of Namibia is not far-fetched, as it fits a well-documented pattern of imperial resource capture. Throughout modern African history, foreign powers have repeatedly exploited internal grievances, amplified separatist rhetoric, and financed local actors to gain access to strategic minerals, offshore energy deposits, and emerging green industries. What we are seeing today bears the clear fingerprints of that same geopolitical blueprint.
Namibia and the adjoining South African regions sit atop some of the world’s most coveted resources: deep-sea oil and gas, diamonds, and the rapidly expanding green hydrogen corridor. These resources are not mere commodities; they are the building blocks of global power. Anyone who underestimates the willingness of imperial actors to manipulate African politics for access to such wealth has not studied the last 60 years of post-colonial Africa.
Swartbooi’s increasingly inflammatory rhetoric, secessionist undertones, and his pronouncements similar to those of groups like AfriForum, who were alleging that there was a “genocide of the Afrikaners” in South Africa, raise legitimate national security concerns. This is not the behaviour of a politician advocating reform, as it mirrors the same destabilisation tactics used to fracture Congo, Sudan, Libya, and other nations whose natural resources became targets of foreign interests. Foreign infiltration rarely begins with open invasion; it begins with local proxies, political agitation, and the manufacturing of internal division.
The critical question: What is Swartbooi’s real motive?
Here the most urgent question crystallises: Is Swartbooi merely reckless, or is he positioning himself as a willing partner with foreign actors seeking to redraw borders and carve out a mineral-rich enclave? Is this truly about uplifting Namibians or about facilitating a geopolitical corridor controlled by powers that have coveted our diamonds, gas, and hydrogen for decades?
The conspiracy theory about the proposed breakaway map of the Western Cape + Northern Cape + Kharas + Hardap is no coincidence. It overlaps with diamond belts, offshore drilling blocks, and the green hydrogen development corridor. It is a region of immense strategic value.
So we must ask the uncomfortable question: Is the endgame to create a new proxy state resource-saturated, strategically located, and aligned with or dependent on foreign countries? Such an enclave would serve as a geopolitical wedge between Namibia and South Africa, placing world-class resources under outside influence. Then this is no longer a mere speculation. It is geopolitical logic.
The liberation legacy and the president’s strategic vision
Namibia’s sovereignty was not gifted; it was earned through blood, sacrifice, and continental solidarity. Since independence, Pan-African ideals have guided our political consciousness, emphasising unity and freedom from foreign domination.
The current president has demonstrated that Namibia can achieve economic growth, diversify its industries, and develop strategic mineral and green hydrogen sectors without surrendering sovereignty. Her leadership has strengthened institutions, attracted responsible investment, and elevated Namibia as a serious regional player.
Progress has come through vision and competence, not through begging foreign powers to intervene in domestic affairs.
Swartbooi’s opportunistic pivot
Once a promising opposition figure, Swartbooi now exhibits troubling characteristics:
• Incendiary rhetoric invoking past traumas of war.
• Desperate appeals to foreign governments.
• Unsubstantiated allegations used to create political turmoil.
• Secessionist proposals demanding 40% of oil revenues for two regions.
These actions degrade Namibia’s constitutional order and position him as a polished local actor doing the bidding of external agendas with “silk gloves”.
His behaviour mirrors what happened in South Africa when AfriForum manufactured the false narrative of a “white genocide”. Even after President Cyril Ramaphosa, independent analysts, and South Africa’s own institutions debunked these claims, foreign actors, most notably U.S. President Donald Trump, still used misinformation to push geopolitical narratives.
Indeed, we all remember when President Trump confronted South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office in May this year and held up a photo purporting to show body bags containing the remains of white people in South Africa, but the Reuters news agency later identified the photo as one of their own – taken thousands of miles away in the war-struck Democratic Republic of Congo. Washington did not comment on the claim that they had misidentified the image. The White House also played a video which they said showed burial sites for murdered white farmers. It later emerged that the videos were scenes from a 2020 protest in which the crosses represented farmers killed over multiple years.
The South African government strongly denied allegations of an Afrikaner genocide, calling them a “completely false narrative” and “widely discredited and unsupported by reliable evidence”. President Cyril Ramaphosa and other officials have explicitly stated that the claim of white people being persecuted or targeted for genocide is untrue and politically motivated. The government and independent experts pointed to official crime data showing that while South Africa has a high crime rate, most victims are Black South Africans, and there is no evidence of a targeted, race-based killing campaign against Afrikaners.
Even that country’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation has criticised foreign actions based on these claims (such as the US offering refugee status to Afrikaners), stating such actions are based on factually inaccurate premises and disregard South Africa’s constitutional democracy. Many within the Afrikaner community, including journalists, academics, and some political figures, have also rejected the “genocide” narrative, stating they do not feel persecuted and do not want to be “pawns” for foreign political agendas.
If they could fabricate such a narrative about South Africa, how much easier would it be to manipulate fragmented rhetoric about resource-rich regions in Namibia? Once again Che Guevara was right when he said, “You cannot trust imperialism.” In no way at all! Not one iota!”
Pan-Africanism vs. Foreign manipulation
A credible opposition strengthens institutions, works within democratic frameworks, and respects continental mechanisms such as the African Union and Agenda 2063.
What Swartbooi has chosen instead is a path that weakens institutions, undermines sovereignty, and invites foreign interference.
His actions do not advance Pan-Africanism; they undermine it.
Conclusion: Namibia must choose sovereignty over subservience
Namibia is at a crossroads. We must decide whether we will protect the sovereignty our heroes fought for or allow opportunists to create openings for foreign interests hungry for our diamonds, oil, gas, and hydrogen.
Swartbooi’s appeals to outsiders, his divisive rhetoric, and his secessionist posturing are not harmless. They are a direct assault on national unity and a gift to those who have always sought to control Africa through internal fragmentation. And so we return to the question:
What is Swartbooi’s real motive?
Is he a national leader or a convenient tool for those eyeing our resources through the lens of imperial ambition?
These questions will determine whether Namibia remains whole and sovereign.
True leaders defend the nation. Opportunists gamble with its future. Patriots build unity. Pretenders fracture nations for external applause.
Let it be declared clearly and without hesitation: Namibia will not be divided. Namibia will not be manipulated. Namibia will not surrender its destiny and sovereignty – not today, not ever.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper but are solely our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
