Willing Masters, Willing Slaves, and Willing Enablers
The 1896 Redline Trial – A mirror of Namibia's colonial continuity.
Job Shipululo
Amupanda
The January trial of the 1896 Redline case demonstrated that if colonialism in Namibia was in an accident called independence, it only sustained minor scratches. These were easily fixed at Lady Pohamba Private Hospital. In 1971, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah told Africans that “while a racist social structure is not inherent in the colonial situation, it is inseparable from capitalist economic development. For race is inextricably linked with class exploitation; in a racist-capitalist power structure, capitalist exploitation and race oppression are complementary.” If you struggled to understand this 1971 characterization, you were indeed clarified by the 1896 Redline trial of 2025.
Regarding the continuity of colonialism in Namibia, the trial showed the willing master, the willing enablers, and the willing slaves. Let’s start at the beginning. This case, launched in 2021, is about the removal of the discriminatory political, social, and economic border erected in November 1896 to protect and defend the German settlers. 129 years later, it is maintained by the government for the benefit of the settlers and their children. The government is represented by Hermann Steyn and Marius Boonzaaier. The captured Meat Board of Namibia is represented Raymond Heathcote and Andries van Vuuren, with Theunissen Louw. Agricultural millionaires Diethelm Metzger and Andre Compion and the so-called Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) are also opposed to the removal of the 1896 Redline to bring about justice, fairness, and equality as it should be in a free and democratic society. It was an all-white conference of lawyers, and that gave me a feeling of what freedom fighters experienced when they fought colonialism in court. It was an experience of loneliness and solidarity, pain and hope, learning and teaching—relearning and unlearning.
The central argument across this conference of lawyers was that the removal of the 1896 Redline will make Europe unhappy. It was about what Europe wants. The European arguments were regurgitated and triangulated with Judge Shafimana Ueitele nodding. A South African advocate, flown in by southern Redline agricultural millionaires Diethelm Metzger and Andre Compion, introduced a somewhat ‘scale of pain’ principle, suggesting a materiality test on the violation of rights. Hendrik Verwoerd and others used these same arguments in defending apartheid. The Judge watched silently. The trial affirmed the continuity of the colonial hierarchy of importance. Namibians can sing the loudest about rights and freedom every 21st of March, but practically, their rights and freedoms do not apply when it comes to European interests. Even in court. Those who disagree must remember that European demands contained in the ‘ease of doing business’ report led to the creation of an exclusive court for the rich, the Commercial Court. Cases of poor Namibians must remain in long queues until the 20-year promise for a Small Claims Court is fulfilled in some imaginary future. When announcing the Commercial Court, judiciary officials disclosed that they went to the United Kingdom, where the Commercial Court seeds were fertilized. The 1896 Redline trial is a further degeneration and continuity of this culture. Europe is indeed the master. However, it is not a docile master. It is a willing, puppeteering master controlling our lives through proxies.
The trial only made sense after it ended. We understood only later why the Judge prevented a government report, already discovered and referred to even by the defendants, from being admitted into evidence. It wasn’t clear why he was shockingly introducing and tendering evidence in a case he is presiding. We didn’t understand why he canceled subpoenas that were lawfully issued by the High Court, even when subpoenaed witnesses complied and came to court, with the exception of one witness – Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah. When it emerged that the Judge owns two farms south of the 1896 Red Line, it all became clear as glass. It became even clearer when we discovered that for his two farms, he obtained gratification from the first defendant, then Agriculture and Lands Minister, Calle Schlettwein, who gave him a tax holiday. Schlettwein’s explanation was that “Justice Shafimana Ueitele applied and was granted a land tax exemption on the basis of the fact that he squarely falls within the categories of formerly disadvantaged Namibians.” Is it expected for a formerly disadvantaged Judge not to be grateful for the Minister’s discretion and generosity? After delivering his judgment, a new position that never existed was created – Second Deputy Judge President. The subpoenaed witness, who was saved from coming to court by Judge Ueitele less than two months earlier, appointed Judge Ueitele as one of the Deputy Judges President. The position was not advertised. Read together, all these developments demonstrate how the government and the judiciary serve as enablers of the continuity of the colonial project. They are, indeed, willing enablers.
As these willing master–willing enabler relations continue, the people of Namibia are left where they were when Theodor Leutwein and Friedrich von Lindequist erected the Redline in November 1896. They must accept, according to our willing court and willing government, to be discriminated against, living in two economies, and prioritizing Europe. Namibians are not innocent. They are complicit. They cannot claim that they haven’t heard that “when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” They are equally dangerous and probably more dangerous to the fight against the continuity of colonialism. “Zombies, believe me,” Frantz Fanon warned, “are more terrifying than colonists.”
Having seen that Namibians are docile and their enablers are obedient and compliant, Europe has now moved the needle further. Its new regulations now have the effect that if the poor harvest firewood on your farm, your meat may not be allowed into Europe. Meanwhile, more than 50% of households in Namibia use firewood for cooking. Charcoal, employing many Black people, is also affected. The captured Meat Board, which operates more like a private entity, has already started doing the bidding for Europe. It is joined by the NAU. Using public resources, the Meat Board is on overdrive again, trampling on the rights of the majority and advertising European regulations for the benefit of the few. Unless there is an intervention, the worst is yet to come. Very soon, meat export may require the legalization of homosexuality and the denouncement of one’s culture. The government and the courts will be there to assist them. Nkrumah was indeed correct that “race is inextricably linked with class exploitation in a racist-capitalist power structure.” It is correct that “capitalist exploitation and race oppression are complementary.”
As depressing as the picture may be, let’s draw inspiration from our ancestors, picking up the spear to liberate the willing slaves and confront both the willing masters and willing enablers. Those who think they won the 1896 Redline case are mistaken. As King Mandume yaNdemufayo guided us, slavery and death are one and the same.
•Professor Job Shipululo Amupanda is a Member of Parliament and the Activist-in-Chief of the Affirmative Repositioning movement. He serves as an Associate Scholar at the Friedrich-Alexander University.
Amupanda
The January trial of the 1896 Redline case demonstrated that if colonialism in Namibia was in an accident called independence, it only sustained minor scratches. These were easily fixed at Lady Pohamba Private Hospital. In 1971, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah told Africans that “while a racist social structure is not inherent in the colonial situation, it is inseparable from capitalist economic development. For race is inextricably linked with class exploitation; in a racist-capitalist power structure, capitalist exploitation and race oppression are complementary.” If you struggled to understand this 1971 characterization, you were indeed clarified by the 1896 Redline trial of 2025.
Regarding the continuity of colonialism in Namibia, the trial showed the willing master, the willing enablers, and the willing slaves. Let’s start at the beginning. This case, launched in 2021, is about the removal of the discriminatory political, social, and economic border erected in November 1896 to protect and defend the German settlers. 129 years later, it is maintained by the government for the benefit of the settlers and their children. The government is represented by Hermann Steyn and Marius Boonzaaier. The captured Meat Board of Namibia is represented Raymond Heathcote and Andries van Vuuren, with Theunissen Louw. Agricultural millionaires Diethelm Metzger and Andre Compion and the so-called Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) are also opposed to the removal of the 1896 Redline to bring about justice, fairness, and equality as it should be in a free and democratic society. It was an all-white conference of lawyers, and that gave me a feeling of what freedom fighters experienced when they fought colonialism in court. It was an experience of loneliness and solidarity, pain and hope, learning and teaching—relearning and unlearning.
The central argument across this conference of lawyers was that the removal of the 1896 Redline will make Europe unhappy. It was about what Europe wants. The European arguments were regurgitated and triangulated with Judge Shafimana Ueitele nodding. A South African advocate, flown in by southern Redline agricultural millionaires Diethelm Metzger and Andre Compion, introduced a somewhat ‘scale of pain’ principle, suggesting a materiality test on the violation of rights. Hendrik Verwoerd and others used these same arguments in defending apartheid. The Judge watched silently. The trial affirmed the continuity of the colonial hierarchy of importance. Namibians can sing the loudest about rights and freedom every 21st of March, but practically, their rights and freedoms do not apply when it comes to European interests. Even in court. Those who disagree must remember that European demands contained in the ‘ease of doing business’ report led to the creation of an exclusive court for the rich, the Commercial Court. Cases of poor Namibians must remain in long queues until the 20-year promise for a Small Claims Court is fulfilled in some imaginary future. When announcing the Commercial Court, judiciary officials disclosed that they went to the United Kingdom, where the Commercial Court seeds were fertilized. The 1896 Redline trial is a further degeneration and continuity of this culture. Europe is indeed the master. However, it is not a docile master. It is a willing, puppeteering master controlling our lives through proxies.
The trial only made sense after it ended. We understood only later why the Judge prevented a government report, already discovered and referred to even by the defendants, from being admitted into evidence. It wasn’t clear why he was shockingly introducing and tendering evidence in a case he is presiding. We didn’t understand why he canceled subpoenas that were lawfully issued by the High Court, even when subpoenaed witnesses complied and came to court, with the exception of one witness – Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah. When it emerged that the Judge owns two farms south of the 1896 Red Line, it all became clear as glass. It became even clearer when we discovered that for his two farms, he obtained gratification from the first defendant, then Agriculture and Lands Minister, Calle Schlettwein, who gave him a tax holiday. Schlettwein’s explanation was that “Justice Shafimana Ueitele applied and was granted a land tax exemption on the basis of the fact that he squarely falls within the categories of formerly disadvantaged Namibians.” Is it expected for a formerly disadvantaged Judge not to be grateful for the Minister’s discretion and generosity? After delivering his judgment, a new position that never existed was created – Second Deputy Judge President. The subpoenaed witness, who was saved from coming to court by Judge Ueitele less than two months earlier, appointed Judge Ueitele as one of the Deputy Judges President. The position was not advertised. Read together, all these developments demonstrate how the government and the judiciary serve as enablers of the continuity of the colonial project. They are, indeed, willing enablers.
As these willing master–willing enabler relations continue, the people of Namibia are left where they were when Theodor Leutwein and Friedrich von Lindequist erected the Redline in November 1896. They must accept, according to our willing court and willing government, to be discriminated against, living in two economies, and prioritizing Europe. Namibians are not innocent. They are complicit. They cannot claim that they haven’t heard that “when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” They are equally dangerous and probably more dangerous to the fight against the continuity of colonialism. “Zombies, believe me,” Frantz Fanon warned, “are more terrifying than colonists.”
Having seen that Namibians are docile and their enablers are obedient and compliant, Europe has now moved the needle further. Its new regulations now have the effect that if the poor harvest firewood on your farm, your meat may not be allowed into Europe. Meanwhile, more than 50% of households in Namibia use firewood for cooking. Charcoal, employing many Black people, is also affected. The captured Meat Board, which operates more like a private entity, has already started doing the bidding for Europe. It is joined by the NAU. Using public resources, the Meat Board is on overdrive again, trampling on the rights of the majority and advertising European regulations for the benefit of the few. Unless there is an intervention, the worst is yet to come. Very soon, meat export may require the legalization of homosexuality and the denouncement of one’s culture. The government and the courts will be there to assist them. Nkrumah was indeed correct that “race is inextricably linked with class exploitation in a racist-capitalist power structure.” It is correct that “capitalist exploitation and race oppression are complementary.”
As depressing as the picture may be, let’s draw inspiration from our ancestors, picking up the spear to liberate the willing slaves and confront both the willing masters and willing enablers. Those who think they won the 1896 Redline case are mistaken. As King Mandume yaNdemufayo guided us, slavery and death are one and the same.
•Professor Job Shipululo Amupanda is a Member of Parliament and the Activist-in-Chief of the Affirmative Repositioning movement. He serves as an Associate Scholar at the Friedrich-Alexander University.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article