Namibia and Germany’s Unfinished Colonial Relationship

Johan van der Merwe | Africa Fellow

Image sourced from Berlin Postkolonial via Flickr.

“Every male Herero, armed or unarmed… be shot to death”. Those were the orders issued by Lieutenant General Lothar von Trotha, the Supreme Commander of German South West Africa, in 1904. What followed was the first genocide of the 20^th century, an attempt to wipe out the Ovaherero and Nama people. Germany only formally acknowledged the atrocities in 2021. This apology marks moral progress but without reparations and the full inclusion of victim communities, it remains remorse without justice. The implications of this case extend well beyond Namibia as it could establish a precedent for reparations claims arising from colonial crimes across the former imperial world.

A Lost Memory  

What is today known as Namibia used to be a part of the imperial German empire. As was common with colonial expansion, German rule was oppressive.  In 1904 there was a rebellious uprising of the Ovaherero people against German rule. The German response was brutal. The ensuing war killed more than 80 per cent of the Ovaherero population and 50 per cent of the Nama people who joined the uprising in 1905.

Germany has spent decades building one of the world’s most serious cultures of historical remembrance, known as Erinnerungskultur. It reflects a national commitment to confronting past atrocity and is woven into daily life, school curricula, and law. Yet, for a long time, this only seemed to apply to atrocity committed in Europe.

The German-Namibian Agreement

Germany’s formal acknowledgement of Genocide against the indigenous Ovaherero and Nama people in Namibia set an important example, not only for Germany, but for all former colonial powers in dealing with injustices of the past. It is the first case in which a former colonial power offered a state-to-state apology for state-sponsored mass crimes in a colony. However, the 2021 agreement, to the amount of €1.1 billion, has been criticized as a pseudo-solution that does not represent an unconditional apology as Germany deliberately stopped short of treating its monetary package as legal compensation or reparations. At the heart of this issue are the continued efforts by descendants of those who suffered colonial-era injustices to secure material redress as part of any genuinely transformative process of reconciliation.

Germany’s own government frames its position as being committed to the path of reconciliation, acknowledging what it calls its “moral and political responsibility”. Recognising this allows us to make sense of Germany’s current approach as one of containment. Germany is willing to acknowledge wrongdoing but only in terms carefully calibrated to prevent the Namibian case from becoming a transformative model for future colonial reparations claims.

There is another reading of this moment, however. Germany has taken a step that few former colonial powers have dared. It has formally acknowledged the events as genocide, offered a state apology and committed substantial funding. By the wretched standards of imperial accountability, this is no trivial gesture and demonstrates pragmatic moral leadership amongst former colonial powers in Africa.

Nevertheless, the Ovaherero and Nama representatives, the Ovaherero Traditional Authority (OTA), were deliberately excluded from the negotiations. In response, a lawsuit was filed against the agreement. Ovaherero and Nama traditional authorities argue that development aid cannot substitute for reparations, land restitution, or a clear acceptance of legal responsibility. They demand the enforcement of their participation rights and condemn the reproduction of colonial racism.

German-Namibia Trade Relationship

The economic and diplomatic context complicates the above demand. Germany is Namibia’s closest European partner and its largest per-capita development donor, supporting projects in water security, renewable energy, conservation, and education. The European Union (EU) has also been Namibia’s largest export market for the last three years. This creates a structural tension where Namibia faces political and economic constraints in pressing for stronger terms of justice. The relationship therefore risks reproducing a colonial hierarchy in contemporary form, as economic leverage and diplomatic influence are on the one side, whilst limited voice and representation are on the other. Without the meaningful inclusion of Ovaherero and Nama authorities and a justice framework grounded in reparative accountability, reconciliation risks entrenching the very asymmetries it claims to resolve. A durable settlement requires direct representation for victim communities, clearer acknowledgment of responsibility and credible pathways for reparations.

Significance Today

Genocide is, unfortunately, not a thing of the colonial past. It endures in the present, surviving not only in memory but in social and material structures that still shape people’s lives. In 2025, Namibia’s first official Genocide Remembrance Day renewed pressure on both governments to revisit the terms of reconciliation. Germany’s Foreign Office, on 30 March 2026, said that the 2021 Joint Declaration had been initiated in May 2021, but that negotiations “with the involvement of the affected communities are ongoing.” This offers an opportunity for the meaningful inclusion of the Ovaherero and Nama peoples and for Germany to demonstrate that Erinnerungskultur is a commitment to justice. This would become evident through a more ambitious reparative turn, involving clearer acceptance of responsibility, stronger community-directed payments to the Ovaherero and Nama peoples and movement on land or restorative justice mechanisms. These negotiations matter not only because they address one colonial genocide but because they may also establish a precedent for reparations claims arising from colonial violence more globally. Such a settlement could put compensation for colonial injustice by other former imperial powers on the international agenda.

Johan van der Merwe is in his final year at the University of Sydney, completing a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts with a major in Economics.

Born in Australia to South African parents, Johan has always had an interest in Africa’s intricate socio-political landscapes, liberation movements, and economic challenges. This fascination deepened during his years at Hilton College, a boarding school in South Africa. His connection to the continent endures today as a director of De Aap Private Nature Reserve.

Johan has studied in Scotland and the Netherlands and undertook research at the European Commission in Brussels, which shaped his passion for international policy. Johan also brings legal expertise from his time at Norton White and his current role at K&L Gates LLP. 

His intellectual interests lie at the intersection of law, religion and development economics, underpinned by a passion for political philosophy and individual liberty. 

 The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. AI tools were used by this author for limited editorial assistance, including grammar checks, phrasing suggestions and structural refinement but all content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.