EDITORIAL: The price of justice or the cost of exclusion?
The growing trend of courts imposing steep security cost orders threatens to turn the wheels of justice into a privilege reserved only for the wealthy. While the practice may have its legal basis, its application in Namibia risks undermining the very principles of fairness and accessibility that the judicial system is meant to uphold.
In recent months, we’ve witnessed an unsettling surge in the amounts demanded as security from individuals seeking justice. This principle was initially designed as a safeguard—ensuring that, should an applicant lose, the defendant isn’t left unfairly burdened with legal costs. Yet, in practice, it is increasingly becoming a tool of exclusion, locking the courthouse doors to those without deep pockets.
Take, for instance, the case last June, when five Swapo members challenging their party over alleged constitutional violations were required to prove they could each afford N$400,000 in potential legal costs. Similarly, in the ongoing election dispute brought by the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC), the court imposed a N$450,000 security order, a reduction from the staggering N$1.8 million initially demanded by the defendants—Swapo, President Nangolo Mbumba, and the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN).
These figures are more than numbers; they are barriers. They send a chilling message that justice is available, but only if you can afford the entry fee.
While lawyers may use such demands as tactical tools to shield their clients from prolonged litigation, the judiciary must tread carefully. Balancing the legal right to seek security for costs with the court’s obligation to ensure justice for all is no small task. But the scales must not tip so far that the financially vulnerable are deterred from pursuing legitimate grievances.
In recent months, we’ve witnessed an unsettling surge in the amounts demanded as security from individuals seeking justice. This principle was initially designed as a safeguard—ensuring that, should an applicant lose, the defendant isn’t left unfairly burdened with legal costs. Yet, in practice, it is increasingly becoming a tool of exclusion, locking the courthouse doors to those without deep pockets.
Take, for instance, the case last June, when five Swapo members challenging their party over alleged constitutional violations were required to prove they could each afford N$400,000 in potential legal costs. Similarly, in the ongoing election dispute brought by the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC), the court imposed a N$450,000 security order, a reduction from the staggering N$1.8 million initially demanded by the defendants—Swapo, President Nangolo Mbumba, and the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN).
These figures are more than numbers; they are barriers. They send a chilling message that justice is available, but only if you can afford the entry fee.
While lawyers may use such demands as tactical tools to shield their clients from prolonged litigation, the judiciary must tread carefully. Balancing the legal right to seek security for costs with the court’s obligation to ensure justice for all is no small task. But the scales must not tip so far that the financially vulnerable are deterred from pursuing legitimate grievances.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article