Alcohol screening at mines not backed by law, justice minister says
Justice and labour relations minister Wise Immanuel has slammed mandatory alcohol tests and firearm checks for visitors at mines, arguing that there is no legal basis for such measures, especially for those not entering operational areas.
His remarks follow a recent incident at Sinomine Resources Group, where Immanuel and his delegation were denied entry to the Tsumeb smelter. The minister had been scheduled to meet with management to discuss planned voluntary retrenchments.
Sinomine’s manager of communications, Alina Garises, described the incident as a miscommunication linked to the company’s longstanding alcohol testing policy, in place since 2013.
Garises said the policy is essential to ensure safety and compliance within a high-risk industrial environment.
Speaking on NTV’s The Agenda on Sunday, Immanuel said the “ironic thing” is that he does not drink alcohol. “I do not taste alcohol. I don't,” the minister said in a firm rebuttal to the situation.
Security protocols
Immanuel described the encounter at the mine gate, where a security guard informed his team, including his driver and security detail, that they were required to disembark, submit to an alcohol test and be searched for firearms.
If found in possession, the firearms would have to be surrendered at the gate, they were told.
“This was the information we got from the security guard, who was acting under the supervision and control of the company, with consent, in respect of the communal or municipal arrangement,” the minister said.
“I then asked whether there was any piece of legislation that allows for that,” he continued, adding that members of the management team who had arrived at the scene claimed the protocol was supported by existing legislation.
“I begged for their indulgence to allow me one or two hours to look at that piece of legislation in order to determine my next course of action," Immanuel recounted.
"I was prepared to do two things: One, to initiate, as a matter of urgency, an amendment to such a law. And two, to launch an urgent court application to obtain an order allowing me to enter the premises, with consent, in fulfilment of my ministerial duty.”
Safety vs law
Immanuel firmly denied claims or assumptions that he was trying to exempt himself from lawful procedures. “No such thinking crossed my mind. It was simply a matter of knowing whether such legislation exists and, if it does, to what extent it is being applied.”
He acknowledged the safety argument often raised by mining companies, that even slight traces of alcohol in a high-risk environment could result in fatal accidents, but insisted that such reasoning must be grounded in law.
Immanuel said there is no legislation that supports the company’s actions.
“The closest piece of legislation you will find is Ordinance No. 20 of 1968. If you look at Section 141 of that ordinance, it speaks to the responsibility of an employer to remove someone who appears to be intoxicated from the mining operation.”
He underscored that the ordinance itself is outdated and should not be misapplied.
“The main thing I am trying to convey is that the legislation does not even compel such action. It suggests that there must first be evidence that someone is under the influence before action can be taken to remove them from a mining operation or area where safety may be compromised," the minister explained.
Chamber of Mines’ CEO Veston Malango confirmed that high-ranking visitors are not usually subjected to alcohol tests because they do not visit the mine for work.
“They go for a specific purpose. Any other visitor, myself included, would be subjected to the alcohol test. But ministers, we do not subject them to that,” he noted.
[email protected]
His remarks follow a recent incident at Sinomine Resources Group, where Immanuel and his delegation were denied entry to the Tsumeb smelter. The minister had been scheduled to meet with management to discuss planned voluntary retrenchments.
Sinomine’s manager of communications, Alina Garises, described the incident as a miscommunication linked to the company’s longstanding alcohol testing policy, in place since 2013.
Garises said the policy is essential to ensure safety and compliance within a high-risk industrial environment.
Speaking on NTV’s The Agenda on Sunday, Immanuel said the “ironic thing” is that he does not drink alcohol. “I do not taste alcohol. I don't,” the minister said in a firm rebuttal to the situation.
Security protocols
Immanuel described the encounter at the mine gate, where a security guard informed his team, including his driver and security detail, that they were required to disembark, submit to an alcohol test and be searched for firearms.
If found in possession, the firearms would have to be surrendered at the gate, they were told.
“This was the information we got from the security guard, who was acting under the supervision and control of the company, with consent, in respect of the communal or municipal arrangement,” the minister said.
“I then asked whether there was any piece of legislation that allows for that,” he continued, adding that members of the management team who had arrived at the scene claimed the protocol was supported by existing legislation.
“I begged for their indulgence to allow me one or two hours to look at that piece of legislation in order to determine my next course of action," Immanuel recounted.
"I was prepared to do two things: One, to initiate, as a matter of urgency, an amendment to such a law. And two, to launch an urgent court application to obtain an order allowing me to enter the premises, with consent, in fulfilment of my ministerial duty.”
Safety vs law
Immanuel firmly denied claims or assumptions that he was trying to exempt himself from lawful procedures. “No such thinking crossed my mind. It was simply a matter of knowing whether such legislation exists and, if it does, to what extent it is being applied.”
He acknowledged the safety argument often raised by mining companies, that even slight traces of alcohol in a high-risk environment could result in fatal accidents, but insisted that such reasoning must be grounded in law.
Immanuel said there is no legislation that supports the company’s actions.
“The closest piece of legislation you will find is Ordinance No. 20 of 1968. If you look at Section 141 of that ordinance, it speaks to the responsibility of an employer to remove someone who appears to be intoxicated from the mining operation.”
He underscored that the ordinance itself is outdated and should not be misapplied.
“The main thing I am trying to convey is that the legislation does not even compel such action. It suggests that there must first be evidence that someone is under the influence before action can be taken to remove them from a mining operation or area where safety may be compromised," the minister explained.
Chamber of Mines’ CEO Veston Malango confirmed that high-ranking visitors are not usually subjected to alcohol tests because they do not visit the mine for work.
“They go for a specific purpose. Any other visitor, myself included, would be subjected to the alcohol test. But ministers, we do not subject them to that,” he noted.
[email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article