EDITORIAL: Did Hishoono have a choice?
The death of Swapo veteran Kanana Hishoono has once again unsettled one of the most uncomfortable corners of Namibia’s liberation history. As with many figures of the struggle, his passing has triggered an outpouring of praise, punctuated by quiet reminders of a chapter that has never been fully confronted.
At the centre of this renewed debate is a historical fact that Hishoono testified against 37 comrades, among them Andimba Toivo ya Toivo, a testimony that contributed to their incarceration on Robben Island. For years this reality lingered on the margins of public memory, acknowledged in whispers but rarely examined in the open.
The question Namibians must ask is whether Hishoono truly had a choice. Was cooperation presented as the only alternative to indefinite detention, torture or death?
History teaches us that apartheid justice was neither neutral nor humane. Confessions were extracted under duress. To ignore this context is to judge the past through the comfort of freedom.
There is also a second, equally important question that remains unanswered. After the trial, after the long years of imprisonment and exile, did Hishoono ever explain the circumstances that forced his hand? Did he seek reconciliation with those whose lives were irreversibly altered by that moment in court? If such conversations occurred, they remain largely absent from the public record.
Yet history also records that Hishoono did not abandon the cause. After the Pretoria spectacle, he continued to serve the broader struggle at a time when many would have retreated into silence or self-preservation. To borrow from President Sam Nujoma’s vocabulary, many would have wavered.
As Namibia reflects on Kanana Hishoono’s life, the challenge is not to sanctify or condemn, but to confront complexity with honesty. May Kanana Hishoono rest in peace.
At the centre of this renewed debate is a historical fact that Hishoono testified against 37 comrades, among them Andimba Toivo ya Toivo, a testimony that contributed to their incarceration on Robben Island. For years this reality lingered on the margins of public memory, acknowledged in whispers but rarely examined in the open.
The question Namibians must ask is whether Hishoono truly had a choice. Was cooperation presented as the only alternative to indefinite detention, torture or death?
History teaches us that apartheid justice was neither neutral nor humane. Confessions were extracted under duress. To ignore this context is to judge the past through the comfort of freedom.
There is also a second, equally important question that remains unanswered. After the trial, after the long years of imprisonment and exile, did Hishoono ever explain the circumstances that forced his hand? Did he seek reconciliation with those whose lives were irreversibly altered by that moment in court? If such conversations occurred, they remain largely absent from the public record.
Yet history also records that Hishoono did not abandon the cause. After the Pretoria spectacle, he continued to serve the broader struggle at a time when many would have retreated into silence or self-preservation. To borrow from President Sam Nujoma’s vocabulary, many would have wavered.
As Namibia reflects on Kanana Hishoono’s life, the challenge is not to sanctify or condemn, but to confront complexity with honesty. May Kanana Hishoono rest in peace.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article