Hai//Om claim Etosha
The San community is laying claim parts of Etosha National Park and 11 farms in the Mangetti area as their ancestral land.
FRED GOEIEMAN
The ancestral land claims debate has just heated up as preparations for the second land conference for September are under way.
Members of the Hai//Om San community filed papers in the High Court in Windhoek where they laid claim to parts of Etosha National Park and 11 farms in the Mangetti area as their ancestral land.
They are represented by Andrew Corbett (SC) and Natasha Bassingsthwaite on instruction from the Legal Assistance Centre.
The estimated market value of the Etosha land amounts to more than N$3.8 billion while the Mangetti area is estimated at N$95 million.
The land forms part of the Hai//Om ancestral land which was also depicted in a map of 1884. The family life, culture, religion, health, economic wellbeing and dignity of the group are said to be inextricably linked to their ancestral land since time immemorial.
They had long continued to exercise rights of ownership, alternatively, exclusive beneficial occupation and use, over their ancestral lands, including the land mentioned in the documents.
The claims of the individual plaintiffs, Jan Tsumib, Mannetjie Gabiseb, Bandu Komos, Dawid Willem, Anna Ais, EliasIaokoeon Guxab, Alexander Araeb and Nikodemus Habue Hawaseb, were made on behalf of the entire Hai//Om people and in the papers the applicants say it is “typical and representative of the claims of the members of the Hai//Om”.
The 15 respondents include the Namibian government, Namibia Wildlife Resorts, Hai//Om Traditional Authority, Namibia Development Corporation, Ehirovipuka Conservancy, Sheya Shuusona Conservancy and King Nehale Conservancy.
In their particulars of claim the applicants say that the Hai//Om are the largest San group in Namibia and that they have since time immemorial occupied ancestral land in northern and central Namibia.
It is argued in the papers the Hai//Om, who share a common historical tradition, language and cultural identity, constitute an indigenous people and are entitled to the rights and protections conferred on indigenous peoples under the international law.
They occupied the land in question, used it and enjoyed fruits of their ancestral land in accordance with their traditional semi-nomadic way.
They say that the maintenance of their traditional lifestyle was restricted by the settlement of white farmers and other tribes on their ancestral land, the decimation of wildlife by colonialists armed with firearms, stationery and administrative measures which limited their access to their traditional food sources. In 1907 a ban was imposed on the hunting of giraffe, buffalo, eland and kudu cows.
Under the South African colonial rule Hai//Om apart from few families working and living in the game reserve, were deprived of access to the Etosha lands.
The group argued the 1964 Odendaal Commission report established ‘homelands’ for black Namibians in terms of the apartheid policy. However no ‘homeland’ was established for Hai//Om.
They allege the apartheid administration encouraged Aawambo farmers to settle on the Hai//Om land north of the Mangetti lands and recruited members of the San group in the area as labourers.
The applicants maintain they are entitled to reparations and fair and equitable compensation for the dispossession of their rights in the subject land in the form of the restitution of their rights in land, award of land of equal extension and quality to the subject land, and financial compensation in the amount of more than N$3.9 billion.
They further claim their right to natural resources on their ancestral land, including the animals, plants and water which are essential to their traditional way of life.
They also want to share in the revenues and profits generated by the government and the NWR and their predecessors from the development of Etosha National Park. In this respect they want the court to direct the two respondents to render within six months a true and proper statement of account of the revenues and profits generated by the Etosha lands since the establishment of the game park in 1958.
Judge Hosea Angula postponed the matter to 21 June for a continuation of the status hearing. Advocate Ramon Maasdorp appeared for the respondents.
The ancestral land claims debate has just heated up as preparations for the second land conference for September are under way.
Members of the Hai//Om San community filed papers in the High Court in Windhoek where they laid claim to parts of Etosha National Park and 11 farms in the Mangetti area as their ancestral land.
They are represented by Andrew Corbett (SC) and Natasha Bassingsthwaite on instruction from the Legal Assistance Centre.
The estimated market value of the Etosha land amounts to more than N$3.8 billion while the Mangetti area is estimated at N$95 million.
The land forms part of the Hai//Om ancestral land which was also depicted in a map of 1884. The family life, culture, religion, health, economic wellbeing and dignity of the group are said to be inextricably linked to their ancestral land since time immemorial.
They had long continued to exercise rights of ownership, alternatively, exclusive beneficial occupation and use, over their ancestral lands, including the land mentioned in the documents.
The claims of the individual plaintiffs, Jan Tsumib, Mannetjie Gabiseb, Bandu Komos, Dawid Willem, Anna Ais, EliasIaokoeon Guxab, Alexander Araeb and Nikodemus Habue Hawaseb, were made on behalf of the entire Hai//Om people and in the papers the applicants say it is “typical and representative of the claims of the members of the Hai//Om”.
The 15 respondents include the Namibian government, Namibia Wildlife Resorts, Hai//Om Traditional Authority, Namibia Development Corporation, Ehirovipuka Conservancy, Sheya Shuusona Conservancy and King Nehale Conservancy.
In their particulars of claim the applicants say that the Hai//Om are the largest San group in Namibia and that they have since time immemorial occupied ancestral land in northern and central Namibia.
It is argued in the papers the Hai//Om, who share a common historical tradition, language and cultural identity, constitute an indigenous people and are entitled to the rights and protections conferred on indigenous peoples under the international law.
They occupied the land in question, used it and enjoyed fruits of their ancestral land in accordance with their traditional semi-nomadic way.
They say that the maintenance of their traditional lifestyle was restricted by the settlement of white farmers and other tribes on their ancestral land, the decimation of wildlife by colonialists armed with firearms, stationery and administrative measures which limited their access to their traditional food sources. In 1907 a ban was imposed on the hunting of giraffe, buffalo, eland and kudu cows.
Under the South African colonial rule Hai//Om apart from few families working and living in the game reserve, were deprived of access to the Etosha lands.
The group argued the 1964 Odendaal Commission report established ‘homelands’ for black Namibians in terms of the apartheid policy. However no ‘homeland’ was established for Hai//Om.
They allege the apartheid administration encouraged Aawambo farmers to settle on the Hai//Om land north of the Mangetti lands and recruited members of the San group in the area as labourers.
The applicants maintain they are entitled to reparations and fair and equitable compensation for the dispossession of their rights in the subject land in the form of the restitution of their rights in land, award of land of equal extension and quality to the subject land, and financial compensation in the amount of more than N$3.9 billion.
They further claim their right to natural resources on their ancestral land, including the animals, plants and water which are essential to their traditional way of life.
They also want to share in the revenues and profits generated by the government and the NWR and their predecessors from the development of Etosha National Park. In this respect they want the court to direct the two respondents to render within six months a true and proper statement of account of the revenues and profits generated by the Etosha lands since the establishment of the game park in 1958.
Judge Hosea Angula postponed the matter to 21 June for a continuation of the status hearing. Advocate Ramon Maasdorp appeared for the respondents.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article