PAUL T. SHIPALE (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
The Etunda Farm Primary School is nearing completion and is about to be handed over to the government. The school is situated on a piece of land donated by the Founding President and Father of the Namibian Nation to cater for children of farm labourers and those marginalised communities in and around the vicinity of Otavi to attend school in line with his long-term call and passion for every Namibian child to attend school. In this regard, this article seeks to look at Namibia’s resettlement programme which, thirty-five years after independence, stands at a crossroads.
Initiated to redress colonial dispossession, empower the landless, and drive inclusive development, the government has redistributed thousands of hectares to beneficiaries across the nation. Yet a critical question remains unanswered… How have these resettlement farms tangibly uplifted the communities they were meant to serve? This is not an accusation but a heartfelt inquiry into the efficacy of our collective efforts, a yearning for the transformative impact that was envisioned. The Etunda Resettlement Farm in the Otjozondjupa region offers a compelling benchmark. Established by Founding President Dr Sam Nujoma, it transcends agricultural productivity. Etunda will host a government primary school and clinic, which will serve hundreds of vulnerable families. This is land reform as envisioned: a vehicle for community dignity, health, and opportunity. It stands as a beacon, a living testament to what is possible when the spirit of liberation guides our actions.
But Etunda’s example, with a heavy heart, we must concede, is the exception, not the rule. This stark reality is a wound that demands our attention, not to assign blame to individuals, but to confront the systemic failures that have allowed this divergence from our collective aspirations. From Oshivelo to Otjiwarongo, prime farmland south of the Red Line has been allocated to a who’s-who of Namibia’s elite. Unlike Etunda, their contributions to the public good are conspicuously absent. The silence from these farms is not just an indictment; it is a lament for the lost opportunities, the deferred dreams of a people yearning for true economic emancipation.
The contrast is stark, and it pains us to witness. While Etunda’s legacy includes a school and clinic, tangible manifestations of a commitment to community, many elite beneficiaries show zero commitment to even basic community goodwill: no clinics, no skills transfer, no youth mentorship. When present, their model often resembles absentee landlordism, not transformative upliftment. This is not to demonise those who have received land but to highlight a profound disconnect from the principles of Ubuntu, where the well-being of the individual is inextricably linked to the well-being of the community. We must bridge this chasm, not with accusations, but with a renewed commitment to the values that guided our struggle for freedom.
Evidence and public sentiment increasingly suggest that what began as redress has morphed into elite enrichment. When land acquired by the state for the people becomes a personal asset devoid of social return, it betrays the very promise of liberation. Worse, it risks replicating the exploitative structures independence sought to dismantle. This is not a judgement of character but a critical examination of a system that has allowed such disparities to flourish, undermining the very foundations of our collective freedom.
The public deserves accountability. We propose a national audit of all resettlement farms and the beneficiaries of fishing quotas since 1990. The audit must answer, with unwavering transparency, the following questions, not to cast blame, but to illuminate the path forward: Allocation Transparency: Who received land, and under what criteria? This inquiry seeks to understand the historical patterns of distribution, ensuring that future allocations are truly equitable and serve the broadest interests of the Namibian people. Productivity: What is the agricultural/output status of each farm? This is about assessing the tangible contribution of these lands to our national food security and economic development, moving beyond mere ownership to productive utilisation.
Social Return: Have beneficiaries created jobs, supported education/healthcare, or shared skills? This question delves into the social impact, measuring how these farms have contributed to the upliftment of surrounding communities, embodying the spirit of Ubuntu. Public ROI: What is the tangible return on decades of public investment? This is a crucial assessment of the stewardship of our collective resources, ensuring that public funds are indeed serving the public good.
Critics may claim land use is a private matter, ignoring reality. These farms were not market purchases. They were public assets distributed under a policy of restorative justice. Privilege conferred by the state demands responsibility toward society. To argue otherwise is to deny the very essence of our liberation struggle, which was fought not for individual enrichment, but for the collective upliftment of our people. We must, with a deep sense of shared purpose, reject this narrow interpretation and embrace the broader vision of land as a communal resource, a foundation for shared prosperity.
The Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act of 1995
Enacted to facilitate the acquisition of commercial agricultural land by the State for redistribution, the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act of 1995 [1] was a cornerstone of Namibia’s post-independence land policy. Its primary objective was to empower landless Namibian citizens, particularly those disadvantaged by past discriminatory laws and practices. The Act established a framework for the State to acquire land through a willing-seller, willing-buyer principle, though it also included provisions for compulsory acquisition under certain circumstances. Furthermore, it vested in the state a preferential right to purchase agricultural land and regulated the acquisition of such land by foreign nationals. The establishment of a Lands Tribunal was intended to ensure fair compensation for expropriated land, providing a legal avenue for dispute resolution.
However, the implementation of this act has been fraught with difficulties. The willing-seller, willing-buyer approach, while seemingly equitable, has often been criticised for its slow pace and for inflating land prices, making acquisition costly for the State. The provisions for compulsory acquisition have been rarely invoked, leading to a perception that the government lacks the political will to aggressively pursue land redistribution. The regulation of foreign ownership, while important, has not fully addressed the issue of large tracts of land remaining in the hands of a few, often absentee, owners. This is not merely a policy failure; it is a profound disappointment for those who envisioned a swift and decisive reclamation of ancestral lands. The pain of seeing land, once violently dispossessed, remain beyond the reach of its rightful heirs is a wound that festers in the collective consciousness. We must acknowledge the systemic inertia, the lingering shadows of colonial economic structures that continue to impede true land justice, and the need for a renewed, unwavering commitment to the spirit of liberation.
The Communal Land Reform Act of 2002
Complementing the commercial land reform efforts, the Communal Land Reform Act of 2002 [2] aimed to bring order and security of tenure to communal areas, where the majority of Namibia’s rural population resides. This Act vested all communal land in the State in trust for the benefit of traditional communities, seeking to protect these lands from arbitrary enclosure and ensuring their sustainable use. It established Communal Land Boards, tasked with controlling the allocation and cancellation of customary land rights, and clarified the powers of chiefs and traditional authorities in land administration. The Act also provided for the granting of customary land rights for subsistence farming and residential purposes and rights of leasehold for other economic activities, thereby formalising tenure and potentially unlocking economic opportunities for communal land users.
Despite its noble intentions, the Communal Land Reform Act has faced its own set of challenges. The implementation of Communal Land Boards has been uneven, with concerns raised about their capacity, transparency, and susceptibility to influence. The formalisation of customary land rights has been a slow process, leaving many communal land users without secure tenure documents. Furthermore, the prohibition against unauthorised fencing, while aimed at preventing land grabbing, has been difficult to enforce, leading to continued encroachment and disputes over communal grazing lands. The Act, while a significant step towards recognising and protecting communal land rights, has not fully resolved the complexities of land administration in these areas. The pain of communal lands, the very bedrock of our traditional societies, remaining vulnerable to encroachment and lacking secure tenure, is a testament to the ongoing struggle for self-determination. We must recognise the deep cultural and spiritual connection our people have to these lands and approach their reform with the utmost sensitivity and a fierce commitment to protecting the heritage of our ancestors.
The Flexible Land Tenure Act of 2012
Recognising the limitations of existing land tenure systems, particularly in informal settlements and for low-income housing, the Flexible Land Tenure Act of 2012 [3] introduced innovative approaches to land titling. This Act sought to create simpler and more affordable forms of land title (starter title and land hold title) to provide security of tenure for urban and peri-urban residents who often lack formal ownership. Starter titles offer the right to occupy a dwelling in perpetuity and to bequeath it, while landhold titles provide full ownership of a plot within a scheme, along with a share in common property. The Act also established Land Rights Offices and Registrars to administer these new titles and provided mechanisms for upgrading these flexible titles to full ownership over time.
While the Flexible Land Tenure Act represents a progressive step towards addressing the housing crisis and informal settlements, its impact has yet to be fully realised. The pace of implementation has been slow, and the complexities of establishing and administering these new tenure systems have proven challenging. Issues such as community engagement, capacity building for Land Rights Offices, and the integration of these new titles with existing land administration systems remain critical hurdles. The success of this act hinges on its widespread adoption and effective implementation, which requires sustained political will and significant investment in infrastructure and human resources.
The plight of our urban brothers and sisters, living in the precariousness of informal settlements, is a stark reminder of the unfinished business of liberation. This Act, while a beacon of hope, has been slow to deliver, leaving many in a state of perpetual uncertainty. We must acknowledge the human dignity at stake and redouble our efforts to ensure that every Namibian has a secure place to call home, a foundation upon which to build a future, free from the anxieties of insecure tenure. This is not merely about legal frameworks; it is about restoring the fundamental right to shelter and stability for all our people.
In essence, while Namibia possesses a robust legislative framework for land reform, the gap between policy and practice remains a chasm. The aspirations embedded in these acts – equity, security of tenure, and economic empowerment – are yet to be fully translated into a lived reality for many Namibians. This disjuncture forms the backdrop against which the current debate on resettlement farms and accountability must be understood. It is a painful truth that the dreams of our liberation heroes, of a land truly for its people, have not yet fully materialised. We must feel the weight of this unfulfilled promise, not as a burden of blame, but as a collective responsibility to rectify the course.
Agricultural Farmland Acquired Through the National Resettlement Programme
As of June 2018, a total of 443 farms covering 3,021,959.91 hectares were acquired through the National Resettlement Programme, benefiting 5,352 individuals. Households Resettled (2002-2018): A total of 1,030 households were resettled, with the Hardap, Khomas, Omaheke, and Otjozondjupa regions recording the highest numbers. People Resettled by Region (2002-2018): Oshikoto Region saw the highest number of resettled people at 1,499, followed by Omaheke Region at 1,455. Erongo Region had the least, with 76 resettled individuals. Lease Agreements Issued (2002-2018): Out of 442 lease agreements issued, 53% were to male beneficiaries and 43% to female beneficiaries. Only 35% of the acquired farms have been issued with lease agreements since the inception of the resettlement programme. Government Waivers for Agricultural Land (1992-2018) A significant amount of agricultural land offered to the government was waived. From 1992 to 2018, a total of 5.1 million hectares were waived. The Otjozondjupa region accounted for the largest waived farmland at 1,594,948 hectares.
A New Era of Accountability? President Nandi-Ndaitwah’s Call for Radical Shifts
The long-standing concerns over the efficacy and equity of Namibia’s land reform programme have found a new and powerful voice in President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah. Her recent pronouncements signal a potential departure from the status quo, with a renewed emphasis on accountability, productivity, and a more assertive approach to land redistribution. President Nandi-Ndaitwah’s focus on absentee landowners, the strengthening of land tax policies, and her ambitious target to add 130,000 hectares for redistribution all form part of a broader vision for radical shifts to address the persistent challenges of poverty and unemployment. This is a moment of profound hope, a recognition that the spirit of liberation demands continuous vigilance and a relentless pursuit of justice. We embrace this renewed commitment, understanding that true freedom is inextricably linked to economic empowerment and equitable access to our nation’s resources.
President Nandi-Ndaitwah has been vocal in her critique of the willing-seller, willing-buyer policy, echoing the sentiments of many who see it as a major impediment to meaningful land reform. She has specifically targeted the issue of absentee landowners, a long-standing grievance in Namibia, where vast tracts of productive land are owned by individuals or entities who do not reside on or actively farm the land. This has led to underutilisation of agricultural resources and has exacerbated land hunger among the landless majority. Her administration’s intention to intensify its focus on absentee landowners suggests a more proactive stance in identifying and potentially expropriating such land for redistribution. This is a courageous stance, one that resonates deeply with the pan-Africanist call for the reclamation of our continent’s wealth for its people. It is a step towards dismantling the lingering vestiges of colonial economic structures that have perpetuated inequality.
Furthermore, President Nandi-Ndaitwah has indicated a commitment to strengthening land tax policies. A more robust and effectively enforced land tax system could serve as a powerful tool to discourage the speculative holding of land and to incentivise productive use. By making it more costly to hold large tracts of land idle, the government could encourage landowners to either develop their farms or sell them to those who will. The revenue generated from such taxes could also be reinvested into the land reform programme, creating a self-sustaining cycle of acquisition and redistribution. This tangible goal provides a benchmark against which the government’s performance can be measured and signals a renewed sense of urgency in addressing the land question. Achieving this target will require a multi-pronged approach, including the acquisition of land from both willing sellers and, where necessary, through expropriation, as well as the development of support systems to ensure that new beneficiaries are able to utilise the land productively. This ambitious target, rooted in the historical injustices of the past, offers a concrete vision for the present administration to act decisively, shaping a future where land hunger is a relic of history.
President Nandi-Ndaitwah’s call for radical shifts extends beyond land reform to encompass a broader agenda of poverty and unemployment reduction. She has emphasised the need for a more inclusive and equitable development model, one that leverages Namibia’s natural resources, including its land, for the benefit of all its citizens. Her vision appears to be one where land reform is not merely an end in itself but a means to achieve broader socio-economic transformation. The success of this vision will depend on the government’s ability to translate rhetoric into action, to overcome the vested interests that have long resisted meaningful change, and to build a broad-based coalition in support of a more just and equitable land dispensation. We must stand in solidarity with this vision, offering our collective strength and wisdom to ensure its realisation.
The Way Forward: A Collective Path to True Liberation
To honour the sacrifices of the Past and secure a just Future, we must act decisively in the Present. The path forward demands not just policy shifts but a profound recommitment to the principles of justice and equity that underpinned our struggle for independence. This is not about assigning blame but about collective responsibility and a shared vision for a Namibia where land truly serves its people. The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform must establish a Public Land Accountability Framework, mandating transparent reporting on resettlement farm outcomes. This framework, rooted in the lessons of the Past where opacity bred distrust, will ensure that the Present allocation and utilisation of land are open to public scrutiny, paving the way for a more accountable Future. Civil society must intensify demands for audited disclosure. Our voices, united and resolute, are the guardians of our liberation. We must, in the Present, amplify the calls for transparency, drawing strength from the struggles of the Past, to secure a Future where no one is left behind. Policymakers must prioritise community benefit covenants in future allocations. This is a critical step to ensure that land, once redistributed, actively contributes to the upliftment of communities. By embedding these covenants in the Presentpolicy, we can rectify the shortcomings of the Past and build a Future where land is a catalyst for shared prosperity, not private gain.
We must ask, whose prosperity do these farms serve? This is not a rhetorical question but a profound moral inquiry that demands an honest answer from each of us. For too long, the promise of liberation has been deferred for the many, while a privileged few have reaped the benefits. This is a moment for introspection, for empathy, and for a renewed commitment to the collective good.
If the Founding Father could leverage his farm to build schools and clinics, why do so many of today’s leaders settle for self-enrichment? This question echoes with the weight of our history, a poignant reminder of the ideals that fuelled our struggle. It is a call to return to the foundational principles of Ubuntu, where true leadership is measured not by personal accumulation but by the upliftment of the community. We must ensure that every hectare redistributed becomes fertile ground for opportunity, for education, for health, and for the flourishing of all Namibians.
All in all, as far as the current status of land ownership and productivity in the country is concerned, what is crucially important is to do research and audit the vegetation, soil, topography and resources available. This will enable us to formulate models and zones which can provide guidance and information on the farming methods and products best suited for these areas.
Some of the resettled farmers are limited to conventional farming methods, which may not enable sustainable production, while some other resettled farmers don’t have enough resources to fix even a fence. Apart from these financial challenges, there is also a gap between farming skills and farm management. Thus, these factors have to be factored in when reforming the regulations and acts for the future. What is of concern right now is that many commercial farms are being converted into game farms, which converts our lands basically into personal game parks and which further exacerbates the food security woes which the country is faced with. Only a few benefit from this, as tourists come only to take pictures and hunt, which has limited national benefit.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers and this newspaper but solely our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
