Red line defenders invite farmers into battle
Amupanda seeks fall of ‘racist’ line
All commercial and communal farmers farming south of the red line should join the case, its current defendants have told the court.
The first four defendants in a case in which Job Amupanda is seeking the fall of the red line have asked the court to issue an order for the owners or occupiers of land on which the veterinary cordon fence has been erected to be included as defendants in the case.
They also asked that all commercial and communal farmers farming on land in Namibia south of the red line and the owners and/or occupiers of land in the Foot-and-Mouth Disease surveillance zone join.
The defendants asked the court to order a special plea of nonjoinder, which may be raised when a party who should have been included in an action was left out.
“The following persons have a direct and substantial interest in, or sufficient interest as making proper to give them an opportunity to be heard on the issues to be decided and/or the orders to be made by the court in these proceedings,” the defendants said in their plea.
They also asked the court to stay legal action for a period of three months, calculated from the date when the order for the joinder of defendants is issued.
Furthermore, they asked the court to order Amupanda to pay their costs relating to the adjudication of their special plea of nonjoinder. They asked that if the nonjoinder did not take place, the claims by Amupanda should be dismissed with costs.
Divide and rule
Affirmative Repositioning activist Amupanda launched a lawsuit in the Windhoek High Court a year ago in which he is suing government, with demands for the removal of the red line.
He cited the existence of the fence as degrading, inhumane, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Amupanda added the red line was used to divide, rule and restrict movement of black people and their livestock during the colonial era; thus, he argued that it serves no purpose any more in an independent Namibia. As such, he said, it violates Article 8 and 10 of the constitution, which protects the dignity and equality of citizens.
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. The Meat Board of Namibia was added as a defendant after it asked for leave to intervene.
‘Draconian’
In its plea, The Meat Board pointed out that the prevention and control of stock diseases are of vital importance in the world, and Namibia is no exception.
“It secures beef production, which contributes approximately N$7.3 billion to the Namibian gross domestic product.”
It is estimated the removal of the red line will result in a loss of earnings for secondary industries dependent on the stock industry to the tune of approximately N$620 million per year, and the loss of export earnings of primary industries dependent on the stock industry of N$841 million per year, it said.
In his amended particular of claims, Amupanda said the policy and administrative action to erect and subsequently retain the fence are flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian.
The defendants, however, denied these allegations and said Amupanda is abusing the court for the ulterior purpose of scoring a political advantage.
‘Colonial structure’
According to Amupanda, the red line is a “colonial structure” which is unconstitutional on the basis that it was erected to achieve colonial aims and objectives.
He added that the fence was erected to act as a shield and to insulate persons who reside south of the red line and their livestock from perceived or actual diseases which emanate from people who reside north of the red line and their livestock.
This protection and insulation, he said, are not accorded to people who reside north of the red line, which is discriminatory.
The defendants denied that the differentiation highlighted by Amupanda is discriminatory, irrational, unreasonable or unfair.
They also asked that all commercial and communal farmers farming on land in Namibia south of the red line and the owners and/or occupiers of land in the Foot-and-Mouth Disease surveillance zone join.
The defendants asked the court to order a special plea of nonjoinder, which may be raised when a party who should have been included in an action was left out.
“The following persons have a direct and substantial interest in, or sufficient interest as making proper to give them an opportunity to be heard on the issues to be decided and/or the orders to be made by the court in these proceedings,” the defendants said in their plea.
They also asked the court to stay legal action for a period of three months, calculated from the date when the order for the joinder of defendants is issued.
Furthermore, they asked the court to order Amupanda to pay their costs relating to the adjudication of their special plea of nonjoinder. They asked that if the nonjoinder did not take place, the claims by Amupanda should be dismissed with costs.
Divide and rule
Affirmative Repositioning activist Amupanda launched a lawsuit in the Windhoek High Court a year ago in which he is suing government, with demands for the removal of the red line.
He cited the existence of the fence as degrading, inhumane, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Amupanda added the red line was used to divide, rule and restrict movement of black people and their livestock during the colonial era; thus, he argued that it serves no purpose any more in an independent Namibia. As such, he said, it violates Article 8 and 10 of the constitution, which protects the dignity and equality of citizens.
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. The Meat Board of Namibia was added as a defendant after it asked for leave to intervene.
‘Draconian’
In its plea, The Meat Board pointed out that the prevention and control of stock diseases are of vital importance in the world, and Namibia is no exception.
“It secures beef production, which contributes approximately N$7.3 billion to the Namibian gross domestic product.”
It is estimated the removal of the red line will result in a loss of earnings for secondary industries dependent on the stock industry to the tune of approximately N$620 million per year, and the loss of export earnings of primary industries dependent on the stock industry of N$841 million per year, it said.
In his amended particular of claims, Amupanda said the policy and administrative action to erect and subsequently retain the fence are flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian.
The defendants, however, denied these allegations and said Amupanda is abusing the court for the ulterior purpose of scoring a political advantage.
‘Colonial structure’
According to Amupanda, the red line is a “colonial structure” which is unconstitutional on the basis that it was erected to achieve colonial aims and objectives.
He added that the fence was erected to act as a shield and to insulate persons who reside south of the red line and their livestock from perceived or actual diseases which emanate from people who reside north of the red line and their livestock.
This protection and insulation, he said, are not accorded to people who reside north of the red line, which is discriminatory.
The defendants denied that the differentiation highlighted by Amupanda is discriminatory, irrational, unreasonable or unfair.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article