A Genocide Forgotten, No More

By: Eleanor Dennis

Walking around downtown Windhoek, it is common to see streets named after German philosophers or musicians and finishing with “Strasse” rather than street. In the popular vacation town of Swakopmund, German-language bookshops outnumber English or Afrikaans shops, the architecture could be mistaken for buildings in Bavaria and it is even common to walk several blocks before hearing any language other than German spoken. Indeed, for a country twenty-eight years free from South Africa and over one hundred years free from German control, so many German colonial markers still exist in Namibia that on the surface it may seem like the wounds inflicted upon the Namibian psyche from German colonization have been healed– they have not.

Lüderitz is the site of one of the five former Namibian concentration camps.

The first colonial claim on Namibian lands came in 1797 when Britain occupied Walvis Bay, and for the next two hundred years Namibian territory remained under the control of different colonial powers. In 1883, German trader Adolf Lüderitz bought the coastal area that now bears his name, and from that moment on German troops were deployed and gained control of Namibia, then known as German South West Africa. While some of these details are known and spoken about in public discourse, many of the atrocities that occurred at the German’s hands in Namibia were left largely unaddressed and unknown by the international community. Thanks to a very important court case that is currently being litigated in New York, this has begun to change.

Genocide and the Reparations Debate

From 1904 to 1908, Germany committed genocide against the Nama and Herero people of Namibia in what the UN Whitaker report [1] has now acknowledged as one of the biggest genocides of the 20th century alongside the Ottoman massacre of the Armenians, the Khmer Rouge and the Holocaust. The Herero people had commenced a rebellion against the German soldiers and settlers at the time and the German military ordered the extermination of their people as a result. Thousands of both Herero and Nama people were killed or driven out into the desert to die, and those who survived were interned in concentration camps around the country and systematically starved and worked to death. The result was the annihilation of 80% of the Herero people and 50% of the Nama people in an extermination so massive the ramifications are still felt in these communities to this day, although no reparations have been paid to date.

The affected communities of this genocide have been seeking reparations for these atrocities for many years, but their efforts have been fruitless. In 2001 the Herero people filed a $4 bn lawsuit against the German government and two German firms, however their claims was dismissed on the grounds that international protection of civilians did not exist at the time of the conflict [2]. It was only in 2004 that the German government formally recognized the colonial-era genocide and issued an apology [3] however they maintained that there would be no compensation for the affected communities. In 2015, the German government officially recognized the atrocities constituted genocide, but ruled out reparations again to the more than 100,000 victims [4]

Members of the Nama Traditional Authority in Hoachanas, Namibia

This begs the question of whether Germany now recognizes the genocide as a crime under international law. While German politicians have acknowledged the genocide in a series of public statements in recent years, the state continues to submit legal documentation to the court that denies that the event constitutes genocide.

Current Case

This brings us to today, when Herero and Nama chiefs have yet again brought a class action lawsuit [5] against Germany accusing the state of genocide, theft, and expropriation of property when Namibia was under German colonial rule. Their demand is simple: reckoning with colonial-era atrocities and reparations akin to what was paid to Holocaust survivors. What is interesting in this case is that it is being pled in New York in U.S federal court under the Alien Tort Statute established under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This tort has been interpreted to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States in order to give a global remedy for breaches of international law (see Sosa v Alvarez-Machain case for more info).

The problem that their cause has encountered is one of jurisdiction, because the Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum precedent set in 2013 establishes that the Alien Tort Statute should not apply to crimes that do not touch and concern the U.S. In order for there to be a firm basis for jurisdiction in the US under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Herero and Nama need to demonstrate that wealth derived from the property taken during the German colonial period has a direct link to commercial property in the US.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs Ken McCallion has put forth the central argument that the Kiobel case leaves the door open for U.S courts to gain extraterritorial jurisdiction over cases of genocide. He maintains that a number of German properties in New York were purchased as a direct result of the wealth accrued from slave labour and expropriation of property during the genocide. Furthermore, he has argued that the sale of genocide victims’ human remains to the American Museum of Natural History demonstrates a valid commercial link between the genocide and American Commercial interests. Germany’s lawyer has countered that the presence of skulls at the museum was the result of a private donation from a German anthropologist and not a commercial exchange and argues as a result that the U.S does not have jurisdiction over the case.

As of August 1st, 2018 the case has been adjourned by Justice Swain who will deliver a decision in the coming weeks. As more information becomes available, I will update this post with the results of the case.

Acknowledgement and Awareness

Members of the LRDC fight for constitutional justice for all Namibians

From the current court case to my experience during my 3.5 months in Namibia, an important theme arises for me as both an intern at the LRDC and a law student in Canada that may tie this blog post together. Living in Windhoek as an outsider who had the immense privilege of working in Namibia and meeting and forming bonds with the people there, the question of how useful acknowledgement really is came up for me time and time again.

In Namibia there are many young German expats living and completing internships and the reality of the extreme social and economic inequality is that German Namibians continue to hold a large percentage of the land and wealth in the country. The German government has acknowledged the genocide and provides generous economic aid for Namibia (which currently amounts to $14m per year [6]however for Nama or Herero individuals who have been set back by the killings of their ancestors 100 years ago, these acknowledgements may fall on deaf ears. What does it mean to really acknowledge past wrongs? If victims demand reparations and are denied, does this deflate the acknowledgement?

There are many cases of reparations being won, and examples varying from the U.S paying reparations for Japanese-American internees to Canada agreeing to pay compensation to the residential schools victims [7] show that possible, though imperfect solutions do exist to begin to address past injustices. On the other hand, many reparations cases leave victims without any relief at all and reparations fall far from the only solution required to support victims and their communities.

Thus, more uniform and universal approaches are needed to address this issue and reduce the struggles experienced by the survivors and the families of victims in accessing reparations for mass atrocities. For the moment this will not help the Nama-Herero cause. What may truly help more than acknowledgement, however, is awareness.

Germany’s genocide in Namibia was forgotten for many decades by the international community, however this is beginning to change. In 2011 a popular book was published that has increased international awareness of the Namibian genocide called The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism. In addition, the current case as well as Germany’s acknowledgements post-2000 have helped to increase international awareness of this issue and there is real hope that Nama and Herero families will receive compensation. The more this issue becomes discussed in the international community the more pressure will increase upon the German government to not treat Namibian victims differently than victims of the Holocaust and receive the compensation that they deserve. A genocide and victims forgotten, no more.

[1] http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/UNdocs/whitaker/ 

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/aug/16/germany.andrewmeldrum

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3565938.stm 

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2018/05/24/the-herero-nama-genocide-the-story-of-a-recognized-crime-apologies-issued-and-silence-ever-since/#768bd62a6d8c 

[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2018/05/24/the-herero-nama-genocide-the-story-of-a-recognized-crime-apologies-issued-and-silence-ever-since/#768bd62a6d8c 

[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3565938.stm

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/06/decades-after-government-seizure-of-children-indigenous-canadians-will-receive-compensation

 

Namibian Law: in Progress and in Flux

By: Eleanor Dennis

Living in a country whose independence dates to the decade you were born in can be a reminder of both how quickly development can happen and how long institutionalized ways of thinking can take to change. Namibia’s democracy is still relatively young, having passed through several distinct stages of English, German and South African rule before becoming the Republic of Namibia in 1990. Now an independent republic, Namibia is in the process of reforming many of their laws enacted during apartheid and determining exactly what Namibian constitutionalism will look like well into the twenty-first century.

Day to day life in Windhoek is fast-paced, cosmopolitan and hectic. The downtown core is often jam-packed with taxis and private vehicles moving people to and from work inside the city centre and to some of the towns outside. There are huge avenues with six car laneways and street names like Independence Avenue and Sam Nujoma Drive which serve as almost frequent reminders of the hard-fought liberation struggle that is never far from people’s minds.

Work at the LRDC

Members of the Hoachannas Traditional Leadership with representatives from the Ministry of Justice

My work at the Law Reform and Development Commission (LRDC) is another reminder of how young Namibia’s constitutionalism really is. The Commission came into operation in 1992 and its core mandate is to examine all branches of Namibia’s laws and make recommendations for their review, reform and development. A typical work day involves the review of bills that are making their way through the Commission before being discussed at the Cabinet Committee on Legislation (CCL) and being passed on to the Attorney General, the National Assembly and eventually the National Council.

As an intern, I also work side by side with the Chairperson of the LRDC Ms. Yvonne Dausab and often accompany her to community meetings, town halls and workshops. What this meant for me was diving head-first into Namibia’s constitutionalism and getting a rare opportunity to see a law come to life almost from start to finish. What I’ve begun to develop in my six weeks in Namibia is a bigger picture of how a country’s laws shape both its present and its future—and some of the barriers that legislation can encounter in effectuating real change on the ground.

Town hall meeting in Hoachannas with the Minister of Justice

Racial Hate Speech in Namibia

Namibian society has come a long way from its racially-charged past. Every Namibian now enjoys the equal protection of his or her constitutional rights regardless of age, sex, colour, race, tribe, disability or any other of the enumerated grounds for discrimination under Article 10 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Namibia is at a crossroads with regards to one of its fundamental post-independence values—protection against racist hate speech.

Many violations of human dignity during apartheid in Namibia have been removed through legislation and policy, however there has still not been a total break with the racialized social order. This is evidenced by the inconsistent distribution of land and resources in Namibia and also in the social sphere where racial and tribal tensions continue to result in unequal treatment of individuals.

Racialized structures and racial language have survived apartheid in spite of a modern, liberal Constitution and a profound will to break with the past. Use of words making racial distinctions between people are still strongly embedded within people’s minds and discrimination continues to occur across both racial and tribal lines. Stereotypes based on tribe are particularly harmful, and continue to impact on an individual’s access to employment, land, shelter and equal treatment.

Freedom of Expression and Anti-Hate Speech Legislation

Other countries which have similar racial histories have enacted very strict legislation to protect individuals from racial hate speech in order to address past injustices and initiate a strong break from the past. These protections must be balanced with an individual’s right to express themselves, and countries like South Africa have restricted this balance to make the perpetuation of hate speech a serious crime where prosecutions have led to jail time. [1]

Namibia has followed suit and in 1991 enacted the Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act [2] to protect the gains of the long struggle against colonization, racism, apartheid and the right to non-discrimination. Few cases have been brought before the High Court, however, and as of 2018 there have been no successful prosecutions made under this Act.

One of the landmark cases that led to a 1998 amendment of the Act is the 1996 Smith v State and Others case [3] where an advertisement in a Windhoek newspaper congratulating a famous Nazi on his birthday was challenged under Section 11 prohibiting racist speech. The constitutionality of Section 11 was challenged for derogating from the protection of freedom of expression set out in Art. 21(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Namibia used the Oakes test and while the advertisement failed on every requirement, the Court deemed that the infringement did not justify restrictions on freedom of speech under the Act because the groups of persons concerned (Jewish people) had “never featured or suffered in the pre-independence era in Namibia”. The Act’s objective was deemed to be the prevention of apartheid-type racism and while the advertisement was harmful to Jewish people, it did not espouse apartheid values and therefore the Act could not justify infringing upon the advertiser’s freedom of speech in that situation.

Former Dean of the University of Namibia Faculty of Law Nico Horn criticizes the Smith case precedent, [4]  arguing that the Act should not only offer protection to previously disadvantaged groups in a country where racism has many forms and minority groups continue to face discrimination today. Horn argues that a broad interpretation of the term “racial” group in the Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act is needed to cross the bridge from a racist to a non-racist society and the Smith case failed to further this. Alternatively, the former Ombudsman Clement Daniels argued [5] that laws that prohibit racism are not enough to curtail racist expression. Laws that promote national unity and anti-racism promotion campaigns are equally needed in order to change one of the roots of the problem—people’s mindsets.

Moving Forward with the Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act

The fact that only few cases have ever come to Court under the Act has led many to question its effectiveness. There are a myriad of reasons for this, ranging from victims having inadequate information concerning their legal rights, lacking the resources to enter into the complex judicial process, and fearing social censure if they come forward.

An article that Ms Dausab and I published in The Namibian on hate speech legislation

This puts Namibia in a particularly important position when it comes to determine which direction the country will take on freedom of expression and what hate speech regulation will look like. Legislation exists protecting individuals from discrimination and racist hate speech, however as long as the Act remains unarticulated by the Courts confusion will remain in terms of what legal protections exist to combat racism in a judicial context in an independent Namibia.

Moving Forward at the LRDC

Like Namibia’s constitutional law maturing case by case and bill by bill, I’m learning to take my experience here at the LRDC step by step. Namibia’s past and present is more complex and nuanced than I can manage and at times I fear I am only scratching the surface of the real-life issues a country must grapple with in the first decades after its independence. Like Namibia, I too am developing an understanding that takes two steps forward before falling one giant step back when faced with issues like racism that legislation has not be effective at combatting.

The perspective the LRDC is restricted to is a legal one, but that perspective need not be the only one. Namibian law is a work in progress and so is building a constitutional democracy. That much, at least, I understand. 😉

 

[1]   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43567468

[2]  http://www.lac.org.na/laws/annoSTAT/Racial%20Discrimination%20Prohibition%20Act%2026%20of%201991.pdf

[3] https://namiblii.org/na/judgment/high-court/96/16

[4] http://www.kas.de/upload/auslandshomepages/namibia/Namibia_Law_Journal/09-1/horn1.pdf

[5] https://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=archive-read&id=147374

 

 

 

 

 

Income Inequality and an Appetite for Change

By Zachary Shefman

Gaba, on my morning drive to work, carefully navigates around the men and women that file past as they climb the sloped, well-paved streets of the neighbourhood in which I live. Many of them wear dark blue jump suits to signal both that they are labourers, and that they are currently on the job. Since there are relatively few sidewalks in Windhoek, they are forced to climb the streets on the shoulders of the road.

Windhoek, Namibia

Windhoek, Namibia

As we progress along Robert Mugabe Avenue towards the centre of the city, I am surprised at the number of luxury cars that accompany us on our route – Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Porsche, among others. I ask my co-worker sitting next to me what the green license plates, in contrast with the more typical yellow, on many of the luxury cars represent. “Government,” he says, “this way they cannot use these cars how they please”.

We approach the Parliament buildings to drop off one of our passengers. However, unlike most days, we are prohibited from entering the premises. The roads are blocked with police vehicles, and men and women in uniform are posted around the garden entrance every ten to fifteen feet.

Today, June 16th, is a special day for a number of reasons. For one, the Indian President is on a state visit to Namibia and is slated to address the Namibian National Assembly. Security is accordingly tight. For another, it is the Day of the African Child. This day marks the student uprising of 1974 in Soweto, South Africa, where students marched to oppose the establishment of Afrikaans as the language of instruction.[1] Most importantly of all, however, it is the day chosen by the Affirmative Repositioning movement (AR) to protest the government’s ostensible commitment of NAM$ 2.2 billion to the construction of new Parliament buildings.[2]

The AR is an organization whose principal aim is to lobby for the redistribution of land to Namibian youth.[3] They have called for a day of action to demand that the government reallocate the resources allegedly earmarked for Parliament to the distribution of 25 000 plots to the landless instead.[4] They plan to deliver a petition to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Peter Kajavivi, with their demands.[5]

The AR, however, has encountered a number of obstacles to their plans for a demonstration. A week ago, the Inspector-General of the Namibian Police Force, Sebastien Ndeitunga, placed a ban on all public demonstrations from June 13th to 18th.[6] Four days ago, the Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture issued an unusual directive to schools across the country requiring that they organize activities for the Day of the African child, rather than allow teachers and students the typical June 16th off.[7]

When I arrive at the office, I can hear the distant hum of shouts and horns of a demonstration. The defiant AR has continued with their march. I worry that the protest will degenerate into violence.

 “Come hell or high water we will march” – Dimbulukeni Nauyoma, an activist of the Affirmative Repositioning movement.[8]

It is June 17th, and I anxiously fumble through the newspapers strewn across my colleague’s desk. Despite my concerns, the protest was ultimately both successful and peaceful.[9] The Namibia National Teacher’s Union and the Namibian National Students’ Organization, for instance, defied the Ministry’s order to hold and attend commemorative activities on June 16th.[10] Ndeintunga, the Inspector-General, ultimately came to an agreement with the AR. They decided to redirect the route so that the march ended at Synman Circle, rather than the Parliament buildings, provided that the Speaker of the National Assembly received their petition.[11] Finally, despite the Speaker’s initial refusal to greet the protestors in order to accept the petition, he eventually relented.[12]

My office at the Law Reform and Development Commission

My office at the Law Reform and Development Commission

This year marks the 26th anniversary of Namibia’s independence, and the period in which the first post-apartheid generation has finally come of age. These are the men and women “born free” – i.e. born under a democratic government, rather than the oppressive rule of the former South African occupiers.

Living conditions between pre and post-independence Namibia have changed considerably. The country has made significant progress reducing poverty, for instance, though the number of indigent Namibians is still relatively high. According to the Namibian Statistics Agency, while 69.3% of Namibians lived below the poverty line in 1993/4, by 2009/10, that number was reduced to 28.7%.[13]

For many Namibians, however, the pace of change has not progressed fast enough. For example, the per capita income in 2010–11 was only NAM$ 14 559 (approximately CAN$ 1 332).[14] Meanwhile, the cost of living is high. While a small loaf of bread can be purchased for approximately NAM$ 9 (CAN$ 0.82), fresh vegetables can be unaffordable for most – where 120 grams of mushrooms costs approximately NAM$ 33 (CAN$ 3.02), and a head of cauliflower, NAM$ 35 (CAN$ 3.20).

Income inequality in Namibia, moreover, remains a persistent problem. While in 2003/2004, the Gini coefficient in Namibia was approximately 0.60, in 2009/10 it remains largely the same at 0.59[15] – to provide some measure of contrast, the OECD reported Canada’s coefficient at 0.32.[16]

Those most subject to poverty are Namibia’s youth. While the unemployment rate for Namibians generally sat at 33.8% in 2010/11, it was as high as approximately 53% for 20–24 year olds.[17]

The government’s response to the enduring problem is embodied in President Hage Geingob’s “Harambee Prosperity Plan” (HPP). The president has defined his term by it. Many Namibians I know routinely invoke it. “Namibians,” Geingob writes, “want a house where everyone feels a sense of belonging, where everyone is presented with a fair opportunity to prosper in an inclusive manner and by so doing, ensure [sic] that no one feels left out”.[18]

The HPP is organized around a set of pillars under which more specific policies and aspirations are outlined. Under the pillar of “economic advancement”, the government has announced its intention to implement a “broad-based economic empowerment framework”.[19] The goal of the framework is to realize “equity in society in general and in particular [sic] greater equity in the ownership of productive assets” of “disadvantaged groups”.[20]

The Law Reform and Development Commission, an institution operating under the Ministry of Justice, and the institution at which I work, has been tasked with drafting the legislation to implement the framework mentioned above. After the publication of the HPP, the policy was considerably elaborated upon in a formal policy document, and a bill was drafted by the Commission – the New Equitable Economic Empowerment Bill (NEEEB).

The latest formulation of the plan establishes thresholds for the participation of “previously disadvantaged persons” (PDPs) in all medium to large-sized private sector enterprises. “Previously disadvantaged persons” refers to those individuals who have been disadvantaged by “past discriminatory laws and practices”. Despite the definition’s obvious reference to those subject to apartheid, its scope is broad enough to encapsulate women and people with disabilities of any colour. And although the definition does not explicitly encompass Namibian youth, presumably, according to the government’s policy document, they, too, are the bill’s intended beneficiaries.[21]

NEEEB facilitates the participation of PDPs in private sector enterprises in a number of ways. To provide just two examples, under the bill as it is currently formulated, all medium to large-sized private sector enterprises will be required to sell 25% of the value of their businesses to PDPs, and 50% of their “combined board and top management structures” must be staffed by PDPs. These thresholds are mandatory in the sense that registration, licensing, grants, guarantees and concessions issued by the government will only be provided to those who meet or exceed the thresholds above.

Much of my time in Namibia has been committed to facilitating the Commission’s work on the project. I have been asked to assist with synthesizing and substantiating the public’s criticisms of the bill, to identify issues with NEEEB, to write a legal memorandum on the potential for the bill’s conflict with the Namibian constitution, and finally, to present proposals for the bill’s reform.

Pictures of Namibia's three Presidents hang in the boardroom of the Law Reform and Development Commission. President Hage Geingob is pictured on the left.

Pictures of Namibia’s three Presidents hang in the boardroom of the Law Reform and Development Commission. President Hage Geingob is pictured on the left.

The activities of the Affirmative Repositioning Movement are demonstrative, in part, of the public’s – and in particular, the youth’s – increasing expectations of greater equity in the distribution of the country’s wealth, especially given Namibia’s liberation from both apartheid and occupation. NEEEB forms an integral part of the government’s answer. Whatever the merits of that answer, I only hope that I may assist in its formulation such that the lives of Namibians may be improved going forward in a manner that all Namibians consider just.

The appetite for change in the form described above is, perhaps, best encapsulated by something that the Chairperson of the Commission, Yvonne Dausab, had once pointed out to me: “The people are getting anxious. It has been 26 years. They have been waiting too long”.


[1] Béatrice Debut, “Il y a 40 ans, Soweto se soulevait contre l’apartheid”, La Presse (15 June 2016), online: <http://www.lapresse.ca/international/afrique/201606/15/01-4992137-il-y-a-40-ans-soweto-se-soulevait-contre-lapartheid.php>.

[2] “It is D-Day”, The Namibian Sun (16 June 2016), online: <http://www.namibiansun.com/print/94507>

[3] Vaino Tuhafeni Hangula, “Affirmative Repositioning: A Breakdown”, Confidenté (28 January 2016), online: <http://www.confidente.com.na/2016/01/affirmative-repositioning-a-breakdown/>

[4] Ndama Nakashole, “Youth to protest planned N$2,2b new parliament”, The Namibian (13 April 2016), online: < http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=archive-read&id=149616>

[5] “It is D-Day”, The Namibian Sun (16 June 2016), online: <http://www.namibiansun.com/print/94507>

[6] “Public demonstrations banned: Ndeitunga”, The Namibian (08 June 2016), online: <http://www.namibian.com.na/Public-demonstrations-banned-Ndeitunga/41494/read>.

[7] Jemima Beaukes, “We will march”, Namibian Sun (09 June 2016), online: <http://www.namibiansun.com/politics/we-will-march.94321>.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Selma Shiwaya, “Police pleased with demonstrators”, The Patriot (17 June 2016), online: <http://thepatriot.com.na/index.php/2016/06/17/police-pleased-with-demonstrators/>

[10] Jemima Beaukes, “We will march”, Namibian Sun (09 June 2016), online: <http://www.namibiansun.com/politics/we-will-march.94321>.

[11] Theresia Tjihenuna, “Police and AR agree on march”, The Namibian (13 June 2016), online: <http://www.namibian.com.na/Police-and-AR-agree-on-march/41661/read>

[12] Selma Shiwaya, “Police pleased with demonstrators”, The Patriot (17 June 2016), online: <http://thepatriot.com.na/index.php/2016/06/17/police-pleased-with-demonstrators/>

[13] Poverty Dynamics in Namibia: A comparative study using the 1993/94, 2003/04 and the 2009/10 NHIES surveys, Namibia Statistics Agency (November 2012), at 10.

[14] Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/2010, Namibia Statistics Agency (2012) at 131.

[15] A figure of 1 represents the most unequal society, and 0, the most equal. Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/2010, Namibia Statistics Agency (2012) at 141.

[16] OECD (2016), OECD Factbook 2015-2016: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris at 55. Note that the measure was anchored to “2012 or latest year available”.

[17] Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/2010, Namibia Statistics Agency (2012) at 46

[18] Harambee Prosperity Plan: Namibian Government’s Action Plan towards Prosperity for All, Republic of Namibia (2016/17) at 4.

[19] Ibid at 8, 62.

[20] Ibid at  28–9.

[21] The New Equitable Economic Empowerment Act, 2015 (Namibia) as of 15 July 2016 at 4.

Life at the Commission

By Zachary Shefman

The Law Reform and Development Commission (LRDC), the government department for which I work, is housed in a high-rise at the very core of Namibia’s capital, Windhoek. While the staff contingent is relatively small – beyond the Chairperson, her deputy and support staff, there are eight legal researchers – the workspace is accommodating: we all have our own spacious offices.

The downtown core of Windhoek.

The downtown core of Windhoek.

The legal researchers at the Commission are dynamic and quite young. Apart from one researcher, who just turned thirty, all legal researchers are in their twenties. They are thus the first generation to grow up in post-independence Namibia.

The LRDC’s work is wide-ranging. They convert government policy into law, review bills drafted by other government units and advise accordingly, conduct nation-wide consultations with the public to collect their input on forthcoming legislation, and produce research for the purposes of making recommendations for the reform of Namibian law.

I have been fortunate enough to have been immediately and deeply integrated into the Commission’s work. In my first week, I was provided with an open door to assist with the projects of any of the legal researchers, who amongst themselves, are responsible for the reform of the full ambit of Namibian law.

Some of my work involved scrutinizing bills before their review at the Cabinet Committee of Legislation (CCL) – an executive body responsible for examining bills before they are presented to Parliament. I would review, for instance, the interplay of a bill’s provisions to identify unintended consequences, and assess its contents for conflicts with the Namibian constitution, among other things.

Throughout the course of this work my warm, and welcoming colleagues would assist me in my efforts to familiarize myself with the Namibian legal framework. I, in turn, would present my own perspective on approaching the work.

Namibia is a relatively small country. It has a population of approximately 2.3 million people. As a result, it is both considerably easier as an individual to have a more acute impact on the public, and to acquire exposure to Namibian life and the key players of Namibia’s government. Within the first six weeks of my arrival of Namibia, I was able to meet and chat with the country’s Ombudsman, to pose questions in person regarding the legislative process to the Attorney-General, and to meet the Prime Minister herself in a meeting with her Office. Moreover, I was fortunate enough to travel across the country for the Commission’s consultations on a forthcoming bill. As a result, I would hear the concerns and pleas of the Namibian public – from the urban, business elite in the country’s capital to the concerns of representatives of disability rights groups in the country’s densely populated north.

On the road to Rundu for public consultations on the New Equitable Economic Empowerment Bill.

On the road to Rundu for public consultations on the New Equitable Economic Empowerment Bill.

Another benefit of Namibia’s relatively small size is how well-connected and experienced some of its key players tend to be. The Chairperson of the Commission, for instance, sits on the Cabinet Committee on Legislation. Some of my recommendations and criticisms of various bills have accordingly influenced discussion at the CCL.

My experience in Namibia has been immersive, eye-opening and all around life-changing. I have learned immensely about a new legal system and culture. I have had deep and intimate exposure to the most inner-workings of Namibian government. I have had the opportunity to contribute to the reform of Namibian domestic policy. Most important of all, however, I have found elements that I will look for in a future career in law.

Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.