DOCSLIB.ORG

S V Mushwena and Others

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CASE NO.: SA 6/2004 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between THE STATE APPELLANT versus MOSES LIMBO MUSHWENA 1ST RESPONDENT (ACC 12) FRED MAEMELO ZIEZO 2ND RESPONDENT (ACC 25) ANDREAS MULUPA 3RD RESPONDENT (ACC 26) RICHARD LIBANO MISUHA 4TH RESPONDENT (ACC 48) OSCAR MUYUKA KUSHALUKA PUTEHO 5TH RESPONDENT (ACC 49) RICHARD JOHN SAMATI 6TH RESPONDENT (ACC 53) JOHN SIKUNDEKO SAMBOMA 7TH RESPONDENT (ACC 54) OSBERT MWENYI LIKANYI 8TH RESPONDENT (ACC 57) THADEUS SIYOKA NDALA 9TH RESPONDENT (ACC 70) MARTIN SIYANO TUBAUNDULE 10 TH RESPONDENT (ACC 71) OSCAR NYAMBE PUTEHO 11 TH RESPONDENT (ACC 72) CHARLES MAFENYAHO MUSHAKWA 12 TH RESPONDENT (ACC 73) CHARLES KALIPA SAMBOMA 13 TH RESPONDENT (ACC 119) CORAM: Strydom, ACJ, O'Linn, AJA, Mtambanengwe, AJA, Gibson, AJA et Chomba, AJA. HEARD ON: 10-12/05/2004 DELIVERED ON: ____________________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________________ 2 MTAMBANENGWE A.J.A.: The state appeals against Hoff J's judgment in favour of the thirteen respondents that the court did not have jurisdiction to try them. The application leading to the court a quo's ruling began as an application on notice of motion supported by various affidavits deposed by the respondents. The notice of motion sought an order declaring inter alia that the respondents apprehension and abduction from Zambia and Botswana respectively, and their subsequent transportation to Namibia and their arrest and detention pursuant thereto was in breach of international law, unlawful and that they had not been properly and lawfully arraigned before the court for trial on the charge preferred against them. The court a quo directed that the notice of motion and the supporting affidavits be regarded as respondents pleas in terms of section 106 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 57 of 1977, namely that the court a quo had not jurisdiction to try the 13 respondents. The respondents, and 117 other persons were facing 278 charges of which the most serious are high treason, murder, attempted murder seduction, robbery with aggravating circumstances, public violence unauthorized possession of firearms and ammunition, theft and malicious damage to property. All the charges arise from an incident at Katima Mulilo on 2 August 1999 when Government institutions, including the Mpacha military base, the Kautonyana Special Field Force base, the Wanela border post, the building housing the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation, the Katima Mulilo Police Station, the Central Business area of the town of Katima Mulilo and the house of a police officer were attacked by groups of armed men resulting in the death of several people and damage to properties. The respondents and their co-accused were part of an exodus of people from the Caprivi Region into neighbouring countries that took place as a result of and prior to the incident. The state of emergency at the time declared in the Caprivi Region was revoked on 26 August 1999 after order was restored by the Namibian Security Forces. Besides the respondents a number of other people were arrested in the country. 3 It is common cause that all the respondents left Namibia illegally and were all granted asylum in Botswana where they were accommodated at various refugee camps. It is also common cause that at various dates during 1999 all except Osbert Likanyi left the refugee camps illegally, and all had subsequently been apprehended at various locations and at different times by Zambian authorities. At different times subsequent to their apprehension and detention in Zambia, they were handed over to the Namibian authorities. Respondent Likanyi was handed to the Namibian authorities by the Botswana authorities as an illegal immigrant. All the respondent's claimed in their affidavits that they were abducted by the Namibian authorities and unlawfully surrendered to Namibia. In the proceedings before Hoff J to determine the jurisdictional issue, the State, conceding it had the onus to prove that the court had jurisdiction to try the respondents, led evidence from various witnesses who on various occasions dealt with the respondents. These included police and or Immigration officials from Zambia and Botswana. Only two of the respondents testified, namely Oscar Muyuka Kashaluka Puteho and Fred Maemelo Zieso. The evidence dealt with the respondent as belonging to in all 5 groups according to the way and dates they were apprehended and handed over to Namibia. The first group included Steven Mamili (since deceased) Moses Limbo Mushwena, Thaddeus Siyoka Ndala, Martin Siyano Tubaundule, Charles Mafenyaho Mushakwa and Oscar Nyambe Puteho. No one from this group was called to testify. At this stage it is worth noting that throughout the cross examination of state witnesses counsel for the respondents devoted all his effort at trying to show that all the respondent's were abducted from Zambia or Botswana and that the Namibian authorities connived in the abduction. This was of course in line with the allegations of respondent's as recorded in their affidavits. The most explicit of the affidavits on that score was that of Charles Mafenyaho Mushekwa and that of Charles Kalipa Samboma, each of which details how they say they were abducted. They read in part as follows: 1. "We were separated and placed in different camps in Botswana. Others and myself were taken to Dukwe Refugee Camp. Although we had been granted 4 political asylum we still reported to the Police Station three times a day, that is at 6 am, 2pm and 6pm. I was not happy with the treatment I received in the camp including the continuous routine of reporting to the Police Station. We were not given enough food so we were starving. Because of these difficulties I decided to leave the country to Zambia. I left with my friend Oscar Puteho for Zambia. We crossed the border into Zambia. When we were in Zambia we went to the Police Station and reported ourselves there. This was on the 18 of June 1999. We informed the police that we were claiming political asylum. We advised the police that we had previously been granted political asylum status in Botswana but had left because of hardship. We were later transferred to Mongu Prison. At Mongu prison we were interviewed by members of Zambian Intelligence Office. We told them the same story we had told the police the previous day. While we were being interviewed by the State Security Officers, the Namibian Police came and wanted to take us back to Namibia. The Commander of the Zambian Police refused. We had told him that United Nations Regulations do not allow the Namibian Police to take us to Namibia to leave the country. The Namibian High Commission requested to see us. Again the Zambian Police refused. We were taken to Lusaka Kamwala Remand Prison. Photographs were taken of us. On the 7 th of August we were called by the prison officers to the prison reception where we were handed to an officer from the Office of the President of Zambia. We were initially asked to collect all our belonging as we were made to believe we were being taken to Europe. We then proceeded to the Zambian Airport. We boarded the plane. But before we boarded the plane we enquired whether the plane was suitable to take us all the way to Europe. The plane was a military plane and we were sure that it could not manage to fly all the way to Europe. The pilot assured us that we were right in thinking that the plane would not reach Europe on a single flight, but told us that we would be making a stop over in a number of countries to refuel and that our first stop was Uganda. When we were airborne we saw that we were going in the wrong direction. We landed at Sesheke Air Strip. We found the Zambian Police had surrounded the Air Strip. A few minutes later Namibia Police also arrived. At that time we were six of us. After disembarking from the plane we were surrounded by both Zambian and Namibian Police. One of my 5 colleagues asked the Zambian Police why they had lied. The Zambian Police said that it was not their problem. The Namibian Police then forcibly took us into their custody. The Namibian Police then forcibly marched us to the Namibian side. During this period, I protested to both the Zambian and Namibian Police that their conduct was unlawful and contrary to the United Nation Charter on Status of Refugees. My protests fell on deaf ears. After crossing the border into Namibia we arrived at Katima Mulilo where our hands were tied by pieces of ropes. They started beating us using their hands and booted feet. I remember specifically being assaulted by Inspector Therone and Chief Inspector Erasmus Shishanda. They were shouting saying they were going to kill us because our people killed their officers. We told them that we had nothing to do with the killing of the officers. We were taken to Mpacha Military Base. At Mpacha Military Base we were handed to the army officers. We spent four days without food except water and we had our hands tied behind our backs. On the 10 th of August 1999 we were taken to Grootfontein Military Base and late to Grootfontein Prison. I have been in Prison since and appeared in other Magistrate Court and High Court more than 23 times. I had been granted Political Asylum Status, which I held at the time of abduction from Zambia territory. I pray the Honourable court to grant me an order in terms of the draft order. I submit that I was unlawfully brought from the Zambian territory to Namibia. ------------------------------------------------ CHARLES MAFENYAHO MUSHAKWA" and, 1.
Recommended publications
  • COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE in Connection with Consideration of Second Periodic Report by Namibia

    COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE in Connection with Consideration of Second Periodic Report by Namibia

    SPECIAL SHADOW REPORT SUDMITTED TO: COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE In Connection With Consideration of Second Periodic Report by Namibia NAMIBIA AS A TORTURE EMPTIRE WINDHOEK NAMIBIA OCTOBER 11 2016 ABOUT NAMRIGHTS INC Formerly known as National Society for Human Rights (“NSHR”), NamRights Inc (hereinafter “NamRights”) is a private, independent, non-partisan and non-profit making human rights monitoring and advocacy organization. Founded on December 1 1989 by concerned citizens, the Organization envisages a world free of human rights violations. Its mission is to stop human rights violations in Namibia and the rest of the world. NamRights bases its legal existence on the provisions of Article 21(1) (e) of the Namibian Constitution as well as Article 71 of the UN Charter, read with Economic and Social Council Resolutions 1296 (XLIV) and E/1996/31. The Organization is lawfully registered in terms of Section 21(a) of the Companies Act 1973 (Act 61 of 1973), as amended, as an association incorporated not for gain. Both African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights of African Union (in 1993) and UN Economic and Social Council (in 1997) recognize NamRights as a bona fide human rights organization truly concerned with matters in their respective competence. The organization can be reached via this address: NamRights Liberty Center 116 John Meinert Street Windhoek-West P. O. Box 23592 Windhoek Namibia Tel: +264 61 236 183/+264 61 253 447/+264 61 238 711 Fax: +264 88 640 669/+264 61 234 286 Mobile: +264 811 406 888 E-mail1: [email protected] E-mail2: [email protected] Web: www.nshr.org.na 2 I.
  • Chiefs, Policing, and Vigilantes: “Cleaning Up” the Caprivi Borderland of Namibia

    Chiefs, Policing, and Vigilantes: “Cleaning Up” the Caprivi Borderland of Namibia

    BUUR_Ch03.qxd 31/5/07 8:48 PM Page 79 CHAPTER 3 Chiefs, Policing, and Vigilantes: “Cleaning Up” the Caprivi Borderland of Namibia Wolfgang Zeller Introduction Scholars examining practices of territorial control and administrative action in sub-Saharan Africa have in recent years drawn attention to the analytical problems of locating their proponents unambiguously within or outside the realm of the state (Lund 2001; Englebert 2002; Nugent 2002; Chabal and Daloz 1999; Bayart et al. 1999). This chapter analyzes situations in which state practices intersect with non- state practices in the sense of the state- (and donor-)sponsored out- sourcing of policing functions to chiefs and vigilantes, where chiefs act as lower-tier representatives of state authority. My point of departure is an administrative reform introduced by the Namibian Minister of Home Affairs, Jerry Ekandjo, in August 2002, which took place in the town Bukalo in Namibia’s northeastern Caprivi Region. Bukalo is the residence of the chief of the Subiya people and his khuta (Silozi, council of chiefs and advisors).1 Before an audience of several hundred Subiya and their indunas (Silozi, chief or headman), the minister announced two aspects of the reform that had consequences for policing the border with Zambia. First, Namibian men from the border area were to be trained and deployed to patrol the border as “police reservists,” locally referred to as “vigilantes,” Secondly, Namibian police were going to conduct a “clean-up” of the entire Caprivi Region, during which all citizens of BUUR_Ch03.qxd 31/5/07 8:48 PM Page 80 80 WOLFGANG ZELLER Zambia living and working permanently or part-time in Caprivi without legal documents would be rounded up, arrested, and deported back to Zambia.
  • Combating Political Violence Movements with Third-Force Options Doron Zimmermann ∗

    Combating Political Violence Movements with Third-Force Options Doron Zimmermann ∗

    Between Minimum Force and Maximum Violence: Combating Political Violence Movements with Third-Force Options Doron Zimmermann ∗ Introduction: Balancing the Tools of Counter-Terrorism In most liberal democratic states it is the responsibility of the police forces to cope with “internal” threats, including terrorism, since in such states terrorism is invariably defined as a criminal act rather than a manifestation of insurgent political violence. In many such instances, the resultant quantitative and qualitative overtaxing of law en- forcement capabilities to keep the peace has led to calls by sections of the public, as well as by the legislative and executive branches of government, to expand both the le- gal and operational means available to combat terrorism, and to boost civilian agen- cies’ capacity to deal with terrorism in proportion to the perceived threat. The deterio- rating situation in Ulster in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1972 and beyond is an illustrative case in point.1 Although there have been cases of successfully transmogrifying police forces into military-like formations, the best-known and arguably most frequent example of aug- mented state responses to the threat posed by insurgent political violence movements is the use of the military in the fight against terrorism and in the maintenance of internal security. While it is imperative that the threat of a collapse of national cohesion due to the overextension of internal civil security forces be averted, the deployment of all branches of the armed forces against a terrorist threat is not without its own pitfalls. Paul Wilkinson has enunciated some of the problems posed by the use of counter-ter- rorism military task forces, not the least of which is that [a] fully militarized response implies the complete suspension of the civilian legal system and its replacement by martial law, summary punishments, the imposition of curfews, military censorship and extensive infringements of normal civil liberties in the name of the exigencies of war.
  • A Dissertation SUBMITTED to the FACULTY of the UNIVERSITY of MINNESOTA BY

    A Dissertation SUBMITTED to the FACULTY of the UNIVERSITY of MINNESOTA BY

    THE IMPACT OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN TIME A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Geoffrey T. Dancy IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Kathryn Sikkink July 2013 Geoffrey T. Dancy 2013 © ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am absolutely, unequivocally indebted to my adviser Kathryn Sikkink for her counsel, her support, and her infectious commitment to good social science. I also owe a great deal to Ron Krebs, who suffered through repeated office visits filled with half-formed ideas, and served persistently as a devoted critic and ally of my project. I would like to thank Ben Ansell for his help with the numbers, and James Ron for going out of his way not only to stay on my committee despite adversity, but also to provide me with his characteristically brilliant feedback. Also, I appreciate deeply my colleagues who participated in our dissertation group, including Giovanni Mantilla, Ralitsa Donkova, Bridget Marchesi, and Brooke Coe. Additionally, I want to give a special thanks to those who provided invaluable comments at various meetings of the Minnesota International Relations Colloquium, including Bud Duvall, David Samuels, Lisa Hilbink, Jonas Bunte, Laura Thaut, and Ismail Yaylaci. The majority of this research would not have been finished without the assistance of the National Science Foundation, which supported me for three years through the Oxford- Minnesota Transitional Justice Collaborative. Also, I benefited greatly from the support of the University of Minnesota Graduate School, which provided me with a year of funding through the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. Mom and Dad, you have always supported me despite my strangeness, and you never questioned my desire to pursue a twenty-year education.
  • Occupational Stress in the Namibian Police Force: An

    Occupational Stress in the Namibian Police Force: An

    OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IN THE NAMIBIAN POLICE FORCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY FROM A PSYCHO-SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVE A RESEARCH THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NAMIBIA BY MICHAEL LINEEKELA LINOVENE KANGUNGA STUDENT NO: 200341413 MARCH 2016 MAIN SUPERVISOR: PROF. PAUL JOHN ISAAK CO-SUPERVISOR: PROF. JANNIE HUNTER CO-SUPERVISOR: DR. ARMAS SHIKONGO TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Abstract..........................................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................vii Dedication....................................................................................................................................viii Declarations....................................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Orientation of the study.......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Statement of the problem....................................................................................... 3 1.4 Purpose of the study............................................................................................... 5 1.5 Research Objectives..............................................................................................
  • Major Trollope and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel One Night As He Lay

    Major Trollope and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel One Night As He Lay

    Conference Paper for ABORNE 2009. Please do not cite vilify or pillage without at least talking to me. Beyond the Last Frontier: Major Trollope and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel One night as he lay sleeping on the veranda of his residence in Katima Mulilo Major L.F.W. Trollope, the Native Commissioner and Resident Magistrate for the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, was attacked by a nineteen year old wielding an axe. Major Trollope survived the attack and the assailant was soon arrested, but in the subsequent trial the “plum posting” that Trollope had created on the furthermost frontier of South African rule came crashing down. The trial brought to the fore that Trollope lived beyond the control of the South African administration to which he was formally subject, and that instead he had become enmeshed in the administrations of Northern Rhodesia and the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Originally appointed to Katima Mulilo to enforce South African rule in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, Trollope increasingly established his own fiefdom on the outer fringes of South African rule, and became evermore integrated in the administrations of countries beyond the borders of South Africa. By the time of his demise, Trollope ruled the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel in a manner that had more in keeping with the academically schooled coterie of District Commissioners of Northern Rhodesia and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, than that it bore relation to the apartheid securocrats of the South African Bantu Affairs Department to which he was nominally subject. Beyond the frontier Even amongst the arbitrarily drawn borders of Africa, the borders of the Namibian Caprivi strip are a striking anomaly jutting 500 kilometres into the African continent.
  • The Rule of Law in Namibia Sam K Amoo and Isabella Skeffers

    The Rule of Law in Namibia Sam K Amoo and Isabella Skeffers

    The rule of law in Namibia Sam K Amoo and Isabella Skeffers Introduction The Republic of Namibia, as the country is now known, was declared a German Protectorate in 1884 and a Crown Colony in 1890, and thereafter became known as South West Africa. The territory remained a German colony from 1884 until 1915, when it was occupied by South African forces. From 1920 onwards the territory became a Protectorate, or a Mandated Territory of South Africa in terms of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. Namibia achieved its independence in 1990 after a long and protracted struggle, on both diplomatic and military fronts, for the achievement of self-determination and sovereignty. The South African Administration was characterised by patent abuse of the human rights of the indigenous people of Namibia. Apartheid, as a political system, is inconsistent with the rule of law; consequently, any political or a legal system based on apartheid will be devoid of the rule of law. This was the basic characteristic of the South African Administration in Namibia. It was devoid of the rule of law and legitimised by the decisions of a judiciary that justified the racist policies and violations of the rule of law on legislative supremacy and analytical positivism. With the achievement of sovereignty and self-determination, however, Namibia adopted a Constitution which is the supreme law of the nation, and ushered in the principle of constitutional supremacy and a system of governance based on the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for the human rights of the individual. Constitution The Namibian Constitution came into force on the eve of the country’s independence as the supreme law of the land and, therefore, the ultimate source of law in Namibia.
  • Namibia Page 1 of 9

    Namibia Page 1 of 9

    Namibia Page 1 of 9 Namibia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 6, 2007 Namibia is a multiparty, multiracial democracy with a population of 2,030,000. On March 21, Hifikepunye Pohamba became the country's second democratically elected president; Pohamba was elected in November 2004 and replaced Sam Nujoma, the country's first president and leader of the ruling South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). International and domestic observers agreed the 2004 general elections, in which SWAPO won three-quarters of the national assembly seats, were generally free and reflected the will of the electorate despite some irregularities. The civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces. The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in several areas. Human rights problems included: unlawful killings, torture, beatings, and abuse of criminal suspects and detainees by security forces; overcrowded prisons; prolonged pretrial detention and long delays in trials; government attempts to curb media and nongovernmental (NGO) criticism; violence against women and children, including rape and child abuse; discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and indigenous peoples; and child labor. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From: a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life The government or its agents did not commit any politically motivated killings; however, security forces killed persons during the year. The government took action against some perpetrators. On January 21, police shot and killed Collen Goliath after he was caught trying to break into the offices of the Ministry of Labor.
  • Constitutional Democracy in Namibia

    Constitutional Democracy in Namibia

    Constitutional democracy in Namibia A critical analysis after two decades Edited by Anton Bösl, Nico Horn & André du Pisani A This publication would not have been possible without the generous financial support of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Please note that the views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and of the editors. Konrad Adenauer Foundation P.O. Box 1145 Windhoek [email protected] www.kas.de/namibia © Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung and the Authors 2010 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. Cover design: Red Sky and Anton Bösl Content editors: Anton Bösl, Nico Horn & André du Pisani Language editor: Sandie Fitchat Printing: John Meinert Printing (Pty) Ltd Publisher Macmillan Education Namibia PO Box 22830 Windhoek Namibia Tel. (+264 61) 225568 ISBN 978-99916-2-439-6 B Table of contents Foreword .......................................................................................................................iii Peter H Katjavivi Introduction .................................................................................................................... v Anton Bösl, Nico Horn and André du Pisani List of contributors ......................................................................................................xiii
  • The Namibian Defence Force from 1990–2005

    The Namibian Defence Force from 1990–2005

    Evolutions10a.qxd 2005/09/28 12:08 PM Page 199 CHAPTER EIGHT Promoting national reconciliation and regional integration: The Namibian Defence Force from 1990–2005 Gwinyayi Dzinesa & Martin Rupiya INTRODUCTION The colonial experience in Namibia was brutal and harsh. For the purposes of this chapter—which seeks to document the post-colonial military history of Namibia—a brief discussion of events spanning the period circa 1884 to independence in 1990 is essential. HISTORIC OVERVIEW The geography of Namibia is unique in the Southern African region. With a total land mass of 825,418 km², Namibia’s climate is hot and dry, measuring the lowest rainfall in the region, with large parts of the country being desert. Only 1% of the land area is arable, confined to the north, with 46% pastures and 22% forests and wood. The rest is harsh, rocky and dry.1 Namibia has a 1,572 km Atlantic Ocean coastline along its western edge on which a number of harbours and ports have been established; these include Oranjemund, Ludertiz, Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. While the country lacks vegetation and is hilly and sparse, it contains a generous range of minerals from diamonds, copper, uranium and gold, to lead, tin, lithium, zinc, salt, vanadium, natural gas, suspected oil deposits, coal and iron. The area first witnessed European interest from Portuguese explorers in the late 15th century, followed by Afrikaner traders during the 17th century, and German missionaries and traders dealing in ivory and cattle at the turn of the 19th century. Their presence was later followed by a 199 Evolutions10a.qxd 2005/09/28 12:08 PM Page 200 200 Evolutions & Revolutions growing trade in diamonds and copper.
  • Constitutional Democracy in Namibia

    Constitutional Democracy in Namibia

    Constitutional jurisprudence in Namibia since Independence George Coleman and Esi Schimming-Chase Introduction Administrative bodies and administrative officials who are capable of making decisions affecting the citizens should always bear in mind that, by the adoption of the Constitution of Namibia, we have been propelled from a culture of authority to a culture of justification.1 The above is a profound departure from the following:2 Whether or not any legislative measure is calculated to promote or to harm these interests of the inhabitants, would be a matter of policy in the discretion of Parliament, into which our Courts would decline to enquire. These two statements by judges 37 years apart not only reflect the evolution of the legal culture in Namibia since Independence, they also manifest the jurisprudential polarity between a natural law approach and legal positivism.3 According to some South African academics, positivism, as a legal theory, is to blame for the terrible track record of the judiciary in respect of the protection of civil liberties in apartheid South Africa4 (and, by extension, Namibia prior to Independence). This is chillingly demonstrated in R v Sachs, where the following was stated:5 Courts of law do scrutinise such statutes with the greatest care but where the statute under consideration in clear terms confers on the Executive autocratic powers over individuals, courts of law have no option but to give effect to the will of the Legislature as expressed in the statute. Where, however, the statute is reasonably capable of more than one meaning a court of law will give it the meaning which least interferes with the liberty of the individual.
  • The Paradox of Gendarmeries: Between Expansion, Demilitarization and Dissolution

    The Paradox of Gendarmeries: Between Expansion, Demilitarization and Dissolution

    0088 CCOUVERTUREOUVERTURE pp1X.ai1X.ai 1 229-10-139-10-13 33:49:51:49:51 PPMM SSR PAPER 8 C M Y CM MY CY CMY K The Paradox of Gendarmeries: Between Expansion, Demilitarization and Dissolution Derek Lutterbeck DCAF DCAF a centre for security, development and the rule of law SSR PAPER 8 The Paradox of Gendarmeries: Between Expansion, Demilitarization and Dissolution Derek Lutterbeck DCAF The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) is an international foundation whose mission is to assist the international community in pursuing good governance and reform of the security sector. The Centre develops and promotes norms and standards, conducts tailored policy research, identifies good practices and recommendations to promote democratic security sector governance, and provides in‐country advisory support and practical assistance programmes. SSR Papers is a flagship DCAF publication series intended to contribute innovative thinking on important themes and approaches relating to security sector reform (SSR) in the broader context of security sector governance (SSG). Papers provide original and provocative analysis on topics that are directly linked to the challenges of a governance‐driven security sector reform agenda. SSR Papers are intended for researchers, policy‐makers and practitioners involved in this field. ISBN 978‐92‐9222‐286‐4 © 2013 The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces EDITORS Heiner Hänggi & Albrecht Schnabel PRODUCTION Yury Korobovsky COPY EDITOR Cherry Ekins COVER IMAGES © ‘Gendarmerie Line’ by Mike Baker, ‘French Gendarmerie being trained by Belgian Soldiers in IEDs in Afghanistan’ by unidentified government source, ‘Guardia Civil’ by Joaquim Pol, ‘Carabinieri’ by hhchalle The views expressed are those of the author(s) alone and do not in any way reflect the views of the institutions referred to or represented within this paper.