It’s Kilus vs Aletha, again

The OvaMbanderu Traditional Authority wants the court to interdict and permanently restrain Aletha Nguvauva and Mitima Rikarera Nguvauva, or any other person acting under their directions or on their behalf, from holding traditional ceremonies at the Okahandja holy gravesite.
The recognised authority under Paramount Chief Kilus Nguvauva wants any OvaMbanderu traditional commemoration at the Okahandja shrine only to proceed with their blessing.
Aletha Nguvauva and her followers had planned commemorations to be held every year from 3 to 5 June. The applicants on Friday sought an order from the Windhoek High Court interdicting and restraining Aletha Nguvauva, Mitima Rikarera Nguvauva, the police regional commander for the district of Okahandja and the inspector-general of the Namibian Police, and any other person acting under their directions or on their behalf from proceedings with the commemorations at the Okahandja holy grave site on any other weekend.
Acting Judge Collins Parker, after hearing arguments, reserved judgement to 18 August.
Aletha Nguvauva is the widow of Chief Munyuka II Nguvauva, the late paramount chief of the OvaMbanderu traditional community.
She intended to lay a wreath on her late husband’s grave on 3 June and had allegedly called on her followers to participate in the activities that weekend.
The widow invited a traditional priest to perform the traditional cleansing before the ceremony.
The OvaMbanderu Traditional Authority challenged the private wreath-laying ceremony coinciding with the event of 12 June involving masses of people.
In their papers they argued that there would be no basis for stopping any person from visiting the sacred gravesite and they would be unable to exercise any powers in performing traditional ceremonies and functions held with the traditional community.
“The OvaMbanderu community would lose its relationship with their ancestors and the community shall become spiritually displaced,” they argued.
“The spiritual connection to our father Kahimemua shall be lost thereby,” they maintained.
They maintained that if this is to be permitted then the sacred gravesites would no longer be sacred and the customs of commemoration would be diminished.
Elise Angula, appearing on behalf of the OvaMbanderu Traditional Authority, emphasised that her clients want an order that traditional commemorations be held every year on 12 June under the authority of the OvaMbanderu Traditional Authority. “Any other traditional commemoration on any other date at the gravesites regarded as sacred and holy should be prohibited,” she requested.
The lawyer further said that Aletha is not a paramount chief of the traditional community and as a member of the community she is bound by the constitution of that community.
She argued that if Aletha wants to enter the sacred gravesite she must approach the leaders of the traditional authority who are the guardians of the customs, values and traditions of that traditional community to do this. She allegedly made no such request.
According to her the court must look at the intentions of what the respondent wants to achieve. She said the respondent alleges that she is a paramount chief and will bring her spiritual priest and this is despite her appreciation of the OvaMbanderu customs.
“These are serious issues which are in total contradiction of the previous court order recognition Kilus Nguvauva as the rightful heir to succeed his late father Munyuku II,” she said and added that the respondents’ intentions calls for a special order.
Aletha Nguvauva in her sworn statement argued that it is clear the applicant seeks a final interdict, restraining her and any other person acting under her directions or on her behalf from entering the Okahandja holy gravesite other than on 12 June.
She said, “The OvaMbanderu Traditional Authority by nature of the order sought seeks to in one bold move permanently limit my rights in terms of the Namibian Constitution.” She reminded the applicant that included her fundamental rights.
“These rights include my right to dignity. Denying me access to my late husband’s grave amounts to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,” she said.
She submitted that laying a wreath on the grave of her late husband does definitely not fall foul of the Constitution and added that the applicant has no right to seek the court order they sought.
John Paul Jones, appearing on behalf of the respondents, argued that the National Heritage Council permitted his client to lay the wreath on her late husband’s grave.

FRED GOEIEMAN