Let us share the land

The Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) is to a certain extent implying that the willing-seller, willing-buyer land reform principle has not failed. At the weekend, the union, which largely represents the interests of white commercial farmers, took on government, saying only statistical evidence would determine whether the willing-seller, willing-buyer principle has failed or not. This unfortunate affirmation is laughable at most. To be quite frank, it does not surprise us that some white farmers are finally coming out of their cocoons by openly discussing the land problems of this country. For many years now some of these privileged farmers have been sitting on their fences and ignoring pleas of government and the previously disadvantaged majority to share some of their arable land with them. It goes without saying that some of them exploited the willing-seller, willing-buyer policy, by inflating land prices whenever government was given the first right of refusal to purchase farming units. In fact government must tell us how many offers has it rejected from white farmers. We are similarly finding ourselves confronted by this land conundrum because most privileged farmers capitalised on government's lackadaisical approach to the land question in that they too, just like the political powers that be, failed to get sustainable solutions to this urgent problem. If willing-seller, willing-buyer, was not a spectacular failure, why are the majority still landless? And how many actually felt the need to make amends to this growing reality? The bottom line is that the constitution was written and adopted as the pillar of restorative justice. And that has not taken place. Clearly not! It cannot only protect absolute land, property and business rights of the former oppressor. Where is the restorative justice that was fought for?