Windhoek: A land claim by the Hai||om community in Etosha National Park against the Government was heard before High Court Judge Shafimana Ueitele on Tuesday. Represented by the Legal Assistance Centre, the Hai||om Association alleges that the government has failed to address the community's systemic marginalisation and vulnerability decades after independence.According to Namibia Press Agency, the Hai||om community argues that most of its members qualify as internally displaced persons, having been forced from their ancestral lands due to human rights violations. The claim emphasizes that the community continues to bury their dead in graveyards within Etosha National Park, such as Halali, Okaukuejo, and Namutoni, which they present as evidence of the Government's recognition of their ancestral ties to the land.The community asserts historical ownership of the land and, alternatively, claims dispossession through racially discriminatory practices. They seek restitution, alternative land, or financial comp ensation amounting to N.dollars 2.8 trillion. The claim highlights that the government and its predecessors developed Etosha National Park into a world-renowned game reserve, generating significant economic benefits while excluding the Hai||om from accessing land, wildlife, plants, water sources, employment opportunities, and sharing the park's benefits.The Hai||om allege that the park's development occurred without their consultation, consent, or participation in its management, resulting in their dispersion, persistent poverty, and inability to sustain their traditional way of life. They are seeking an allocation of about 23,000 square kilometers of ancestral land.In response, the government, through its Attorney Janseline Gawises, intends to challenge the claim by filing exceptions and applications to strike out portions of the plaintiff's particulars of claim, labeling them as vague, embarrassing, and failing to disclose a valid cause of action. The defendants also aim to strike out certain allegation s and annexures, deeming some material hearsay, irrelevant, or prejudicial. They express concerns over the sufficiency of supporting factual material, the use of expert evidence, and reliance on customary law. Additionally, they note legibility issues with several maps and documents, despite requests for clearer copies.The matter is expected to proceed with legal arguments on these preliminary issues before determining the hearing dates.