NAU to join red line legal battle
The Namibian Agricultural Union (NAU) intends to join the legal action to fight against the removal of the veterinary cordon fence (VCF).
This will make union, which represents commercial or non-subsistence farmers, the sixth defendant in the case.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) activist Job Amupanda filed a case on 26 May last year, seeking a court order to have the fence removed and declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He listed agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, the government, attorney-general Festus Mbandeka, and an official in the directorate of veterinary services, Hango Nambinga, as defendants in the matter.
However, the Meat Board of Namibia was added as a fifth defendant after it asked for leave to intervene.
Two commercial farmers have also joined as third parties in the case.
Legal steps
A report filed at the High Court on Thursday by the union, states they engaged Amupanda and all five defendants in a letter dated 2 December regarding their intention to file an application to be joined as defendants.
The reasons for their action will be addressed in a founding affidavit by its president, Pieter Gouws.
The report was filed in terms of Rule 32 (10) of the Rules of the High Court, which states that "any proceeding contemplated in this rule must, before instituting the proceeding, file with the registrar details of the steps taken to have the matter resolved amicably...".
Rule 32 refers to the judge in the matter who must give directions in respect of an interlocutory proceeding that a party has initiated or intends to raise with regard to the date and time of hearing the matter, the times for filing heads of argument, and generally the speedy finalisation thereof.
No responses
The union indicated in the letter that it has taken steps to engage representatives of the various parties, whether they agree or disagree with NAU bringing the application to become a defendant.
They proposed an engagement to find an amicable solution by way of a virtual meeting on 6 December.
The report by the NAU states that other than the Meat Board, which had no objection to the union becoming a party, no reaction was received from any of the other parties, and no parties attended the virtual meeting.
"The matter could therefore not be amicably resolved."
Colonial remnant
Amupanda, in his amended particulars of claim, said that the policy and administrative action to erect and subsequently retain the VCF are flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian.
However, the defendants in their plea denied these allegations and said Amupanda, through these proceedings, is abusing the court for the ulterior purpose of scoring a political points.
Amupanda described the VCF as a "colonial structure" and argued it is unconstitutional on the basis that it was erected to achieve colonial aims and objectives.
"It is not sanctioned or made provision for by any law in Namibia; it is not rationally connected to any purposes; people who are from northern origins are not treated the same as those from southern origins."
It is estimated that the removal of the VCF will result in a loss of earnings of approximately N$620 million per year for secondary industries dependent on the stock industry. Further, an estimated N$841 million per year in loss of export earnings for primary industries dependent on the stock industry will be experienced.
This will make union, which represents commercial or non-subsistence farmers, the sixth defendant in the case.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) activist Job Amupanda filed a case on 26 May last year, seeking a court order to have the fence removed and declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He listed agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, the government, attorney-general Festus Mbandeka, and an official in the directorate of veterinary services, Hango Nambinga, as defendants in the matter.
However, the Meat Board of Namibia was added as a fifth defendant after it asked for leave to intervene.
Two commercial farmers have also joined as third parties in the case.
Legal steps
A report filed at the High Court on Thursday by the union, states they engaged Amupanda and all five defendants in a letter dated 2 December regarding their intention to file an application to be joined as defendants.
The reasons for their action will be addressed in a founding affidavit by its president, Pieter Gouws.
The report was filed in terms of Rule 32 (10) of the Rules of the High Court, which states that "any proceeding contemplated in this rule must, before instituting the proceeding, file with the registrar details of the steps taken to have the matter resolved amicably...".
Rule 32 refers to the judge in the matter who must give directions in respect of an interlocutory proceeding that a party has initiated or intends to raise with regard to the date and time of hearing the matter, the times for filing heads of argument, and generally the speedy finalisation thereof.
No responses
The union indicated in the letter that it has taken steps to engage representatives of the various parties, whether they agree or disagree with NAU bringing the application to become a defendant.
They proposed an engagement to find an amicable solution by way of a virtual meeting on 6 December.
The report by the NAU states that other than the Meat Board, which had no objection to the union becoming a party, no reaction was received from any of the other parties, and no parties attended the virtual meeting.
"The matter could therefore not be amicably resolved."
Colonial remnant
Amupanda, in his amended particulars of claim, said that the policy and administrative action to erect and subsequently retain the VCF are flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian.
However, the defendants in their plea denied these allegations and said Amupanda, through these proceedings, is abusing the court for the ulterior purpose of scoring a political points.
Amupanda described the VCF as a "colonial structure" and argued it is unconstitutional on the basis that it was erected to achieve colonial aims and objectives.
"It is not sanctioned or made provision for by any law in Namibia; it is not rationally connected to any purposes; people who are from northern origins are not treated the same as those from southern origins."
It is estimated that the removal of the VCF will result in a loss of earnings of approximately N$620 million per year for secondary industries dependent on the stock industry. Further, an estimated N$841 million per year in loss of export earnings for primary industries dependent on the stock industry will be experienced.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article