Spy agency to appeal
The Namibia Central Intelligence Service is hitting back at The Patriot with papers filed for an appeal in the Supreme Court.
The dust around the Namibia Central Intelligence Service's (NCIS) attempt to prevent The Patriot newspaper from publishing details about its property in Windhoek and two farms, refuses to subside.
The NCIS has filed papers to appeal against the Windhoek High Court judgment in which it dismissed the agency's application on 18 June with costs.
The agency's grounds for appeal are, among others, that the court erred in the manner in which it approached and adjudicated the requirement of injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended.
In the papers, Advocate Dennis Khama, appearing for the director-general of the NCIS and the government, objects to the finding that his client's apprehension was founded on a set of questions sent by The Patriot editor Mathias Haufiku.
He argues that their reasonable apprehension was pleaded in the founding statement which included that the publication of the information will be a contravention of the the Protection of Information Act and that the publication will pose a national security risk to the state.
Furthermore, the court erred when it found that the agency did not plead factual material that entitled it to the order it had sought.
The court found that the failure to plead factual material precisely and fully on the exact nature and scope of the security concerns detracted from the veracity of the NCIS's case.
“We object to this finding and approach in that they actually did plead the factual material upon which the case was based,” Khama argued.
In the third instance, the agency is of the view the court did not judicially determine the real issue between the parties.
“This was the subject matter that prompted the litigation and it is the judicial interpretation of those provisions the court was required to determine and to make a pronouncement on the interpretation of those provisions. The court did not do so and it erred,” Khama said.
The fifth ground of appeal is that the court erred in finding that the agency should have commented on the questions forwarded by The Patriot newspaper or should have provided the information it sought.
According to Khama the court did not take into account the purpose of the Protection of Information Act and the Service Act.
“Both these legislations regulate certain prescribed and defined information and the court was obliged to take that into account,” Khama maintained.
Papers have been filed and a date for the hearing in the Supreme Court is still to be set.
FRED GOEIEMAN
The NCIS has filed papers to appeal against the Windhoek High Court judgment in which it dismissed the agency's application on 18 June with costs.
The agency's grounds for appeal are, among others, that the court erred in the manner in which it approached and adjudicated the requirement of injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended.
In the papers, Advocate Dennis Khama, appearing for the director-general of the NCIS and the government, objects to the finding that his client's apprehension was founded on a set of questions sent by The Patriot editor Mathias Haufiku.
He argues that their reasonable apprehension was pleaded in the founding statement which included that the publication of the information will be a contravention of the the Protection of Information Act and that the publication will pose a national security risk to the state.
Furthermore, the court erred when it found that the agency did not plead factual material that entitled it to the order it had sought.
The court found that the failure to plead factual material precisely and fully on the exact nature and scope of the security concerns detracted from the veracity of the NCIS's case.
“We object to this finding and approach in that they actually did plead the factual material upon which the case was based,” Khama argued.
In the third instance, the agency is of the view the court did not judicially determine the real issue between the parties.
“This was the subject matter that prompted the litigation and it is the judicial interpretation of those provisions the court was required to determine and to make a pronouncement on the interpretation of those provisions. The court did not do so and it erred,” Khama said.
The fifth ground of appeal is that the court erred in finding that the agency should have commented on the questions forwarded by The Patriot newspaper or should have provided the information it sought.
According to Khama the court did not take into account the purpose of the Protection of Information Act and the Service Act.
“Both these legislations regulate certain prescribed and defined information and the court was obliged to take that into account,” Khama maintained.
Papers have been filed and a date for the hearing in the Supreme Court is still to be set.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article