Opposition parties dealt court blow

JEMIMA BEUKES



WINDHOEK

Political parties urgently seeking the courts to nullify the process that led to the appointment of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) bosses were dealt a blow yesterday when the High Court reserved judgement for three weeks.

Despite the six parties bringing the application before the courts on an urgent basis, Judge Collins Parker will only deliver it a week before the National Assembly resumes. Critics questioned the court’s decision to postpone judgement.

Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) treasurer Nico Smit questioned the relevance of an urgent application as a legal provision when matters are postponed for weeks.

“What is very strange for us is that we came with an urgent application and after hearing us, they postponed the hearing until 31 August – which is 20 days. This is an urgent application and we are asking a very simple thing. It boggles our mind that they would postpone it.

“What is the definition of urgent? The way I see it, it should be heard immediately and the judgement be given immediately. This makes a mockery of our judiciary. The question now is: Is our judiciary captured?” he asked.

PDM, backed by the All People’s Party (APP), Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP), Republican Party (RP), National Unity Democratic Organisation (NUDO) Namibian Economic Freedom Fighters (NEFF) and South West African National Union (SWANU), brought the urgent application against the Speaker of the National Assembly Peter Katjavivi and President Hage Geingob, in which they claim the reappointment of Paulus Noa as head of the ACC was unlawful.

The Landless People’s Movement (LPM) - whose leaders have just been exonerated after being kicked out of Parliament and refused to join PDM in the quest to annul the reappointment - is also cited as respondents along with the ruling party, Swapo.

The group also accused Geingob of violating the doctrine of separation of powers and of having interfered with the business of the legislature.

Illegal and unlawful

In their heads of argument filed with the High Court yesterday morning, the parties said Geingob has no business extending or adjourning the sittings of Parliament and that these powers fall within the ambit of the National Assembly.

“If the appointed and nominated candidates were appointed at an unlawful sitting in an unlawful manner, they cannot assume office and such assumption of office is vitiated by illegality, rendering their actions as officers in those positions illegal and unlawful. There is simply no substantial redress in due course from such illegality and unconstitutionality,” they said.

They pointed out that the constitution provides for the National Assembly to determine and control its internal arrangements, proceedings and procedures and that the president may only intervene in parliamentary affairs when acting within the power vested in him by the constitution and the law.

The parties submitted that in this case, Geingob was permitted to direct Parliament to sit on special sessions by the proclamation, but it was unconstitutional to amend the proclamation to extend the special session.

“We assume that the president may have realised that the business he directed to the National Assembly was not going to be finalised on the date directed by the proclamation, and as such, he sought to extend the proclamation.

Interference

“But this act – extending the sitting days – constitutes interference in the legislative process of the National Assembly. The act of amending the proclamation to regulate the sitting of the National Assembly while the National Assembly is vested with special business constitutes interference and offends the doctrine of separation of power,” they said.

The political parties also took issue with the less than two hours’ notice, which they argue was unfair, reasonable and shut out several members of Parliament who could not make it in time.

At the time, Katjavivi allegedly notified the lawmakers two hours before the session commenced, giving many insufficient time to prepare and attend.

According to them, the inadequacy of notice is muffling the public’s right to representation, as they were deprived of airing their voice regarding the director and deputy director of the ACC and the electoral commissioners.

The political parties are represented by lawyer Elize Angula, while the Katjavivi roped in South African senior counsel advocate Vincent Maleka.

[email protected]