Pohamba, Nujoma breathe fire

Calls for the government to hold a land referendum grew louder yesterday when former presidents Hifikepunye Pohamba and Sam Nujoma both suggested that a public vote should held to consider constitutional amendments.

This would be with the view of giving the state more power to take away land from absentee landlords.

Addressing participants at the second national land conference, which kicked off yesterday, the two statesmen were in agreement that foreign-owned land should be expropriated.

Pohamba, though, believes fair compensation should be paid for infrastructure investment.

“You can't sell land, as it is God-given. You can compensate for houses and not land,” Pohamba said to thunderous applause.

However, Nujoma wants expropriation without compensation.

“No foreigner should be allowed to own commercial land. Speed up expropriation without compensation of land owned by foreigners,” he said.

The founding president dismissed concerns that taking away land from foreigners would be detrimental to the country's economy.

“There is no truth to this claim. It will not compromise food security.”





Both Nujoma and Pohamba suggested that all land should belong to the state, so it can be redistributed equitably.



Willing buyer, willing seller

Turning to the contentious issue of the willing-buyer, willing-seller redistribution policy, Pohamba, who is a former land resettlement minister, said the concept has not worked and should be abolished in order to fast-track land reform.

He said previously advantaged commercial farmers continue to offer land at inflated prices.

Pohamba also told the audience that some land offered to the government was unsuitable for resettlement purposes.

Article 16 (2) of the constitution says that the state or a competent body or organ authorised by law may expropriate property in the public interest, subject to the payment of just compensation, in accordance with requirements and procedures to be determined by an Act of parliament.

Pohamba has in the past pleaded with commercial farmers, saying if they did not sell land to the government so the growing number of restless and landless people in the country can be resettled, the government would find other ways to obtain land in order to resettle previously disadvantaged communities.



Ancestral land claims rejected

Although President Hage Geingob welcomed discussions on ancestral land rights and restitution, Pohamba bluntly rejected the issue, saying it was counterproductive and could lead to civil strife.

Nujoma also agreed that ancestral land restitution is impossible and that the matter should not be entertained.

Geingob said in his opening address that ancestral land claims and restitution were discussed at the first national land conference in 1991.

“However, the subject raised acrimonious debate and no consensus could be reached, given the complexity of redressing ancestral claims.

“Article 21 of the constitution provides for all Namibians to move freely throughout Namibia, to reside and settle in any part of a unitary state.

“How do we resolve this fundamental right and freedom espoused in the supreme law of the land, with claims for ancestral land restitution? We are ready to discuss it here,” Geingob said.



Conciliatory tone

Geingob's tone was also conciliatory.

He extended an olive branch to those who had either boycotted or withdrawn from the land conference at the last minute, saying it was within their constitutional rights to do so.

“Although invited, those who have decided to exercise their democratic right not to participate in this consultation, do so within the enjoyment of their rights in a constitutional state.

“Those delegates who have been invited but withdrew their participation remain welcome and I will be here throughout the conference, availing myself to engage those who may have misunderstandings on issues.

“It is apparent there have been key misunderstandings that certain issues were not going to be discussed at this conference, such as ancestral rights. Quite the opposite, I have called for all relevant matters to be discussed,” Geingob said.

The head of state admitted that the government's resettlement criteria had not been followed to the letter when it came to dishing out land to beneficiaries.

This admission was in itself damning, as the government has been under fire from pressure groups who believe that the elite and well-connected have benefited illegally from the country's land reform programme over the years.

Geingob also said concerns of Namibians about the slow pace of land reform, and those of the landless, are “legitimate”.

He said these warranted the land gathering this week, in order to “have this difficult conversation and resolve this”.

“The equal distribution of resources among all Namibians is a national interest that warrants a drastic transformation of the status quo.”

Turning to the issue of the obligation to share resources, he said the country belongs to all and this issue had to be resolved “fairly and equitably”.

Geingob said the consensus is that the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle has not delivered the desired results.

“We can pursue the constitutional mechanisms to achieve land equity. This is the position of the Swapo-led government on land acquisition and this position stands, provided expropriation is carried out in the public interest.”

He said the plight of farmworkers if of great concern.

“Legislative interventions have been developed to protect the rights of farmworkers, but the emerging issues of generational farmworkers need our collective consideration.

“Generational farmworkers are expelled from land on which they were born and are dumped onto road corridors.

“All resettlement programmes should pay special attention to the plight of generational farmworkers, who themselves are inherently landless, more so when the farm they lived on all their lives changes ownership,” Geingob said.



Resettlement criteria not followed

The head of state admitted that resettlement criteria have “not been consistently followed”.

“People who do not meet the minimum criteria have been resettled and (were) provided post-resettlement support. This undermines our objectives of achieving equity and social justice.

“We should use resettlement as an instrument to enable those previously dispossessed to access land.

“Any resettlement farm purchased should have due consideration to the landless, poor and vulnerable,” he said.

JANA-MARI SMITH