The judiciary must reflect

If there are individuals who believe that the alleged situation will continue whereby members of the justice system are somewhat above reproach, then they are mistaken.

The recent suspension of the editor of New Era newspaper over an editorial that bemoaned an alleged secretive judiciary is a miscalculation by members of the justice system in general and the judiciary in particular.

It is even more concerning if some individuals in the justice system actually turned to politicians to express their displeasure with the editorial and if what took place was done in response to them and for their appeasement. The problem is twofold.

Firstly, if members of the justice system are involved, then it is clear that there is a symbiotic relationship between our judiciary and politicians. By moving and acting swiftly, the politicians know very well that we live in a Namibia that is characterised by 'I scratch your back and I scratch yours later in favourable return'.

When the time is right, the politicians will turn to the judges to ask for a favour in return. But this is on the assumption that this is the first time this has happened.

What if the judiciary has already done a favour for politicians and it is actually the politicians returning the favour this time around?

A few months ago, the chairperson of Namcor was arrested for being in possession of drugs. Minister of finance Iipumbu Shiimi wrote to the Inspector General of the Namibian Police, allegedly asking for police protection of the board chairperson on a personal criminal matter that had nothing to do with the government or the finance ministry. Those in the know claim that while in police custody, several politicians pressured the police to release her.

It was alleged that, unlike other suspects arrested for being in possession of drugs, this board chairperson was allegedly not subjected to a drug test.

How this might have happened is easy to understand. When she appeared in court, the minister of mines, Tom Alweendo, left his ministerial office to come and sit in the public gallery. It was thus unsurprising that the state did not oppose bail or impose any bail conditions.

Fast forward: The magistrate threw out the case, and the board chair and the ministers no longer need to come to court or ask for police protection. Whether she is guilty or innocent was not the task of ministers to determine, but our criminal justice system. What would prevent other suspects and their lawyers from demanding the same treatment and outcome in the exact same type of case? The only plausible explanation for this case is that there are serious underground activities.

If the judiciary can allegedly do a favour for Iipumbu Shiimi, what difficulty would this public enterprise minister and his colleagues have in ensuring that a public enterprise called New Era suspends its editor, Johnathan Beukes, who is unafraid of penning an editorial about a secretive judiciary?

The scratching of backs can create a system within a system.

During the same week, we heard police officers, who were called by the very same State, testify that the individuals they arrested did not commit the alleged offences and that they in fact did not want to arrest the very same youth they arrested.

Who then ordered the arrest, and on what basis? Michael Amushelelo, who spent seven months in police custody, is known for his sharp views on politicians, including the very same ministers who are able to write to a police chief to provide protection, after which the police allegedly avoid doing drug tests. Is this not another favour, like protection, that the police had to do for ministers who wanted Amushelelo off their backs?

Left with no choice, the magistrate discharged the accused. Without a single explanation provided to the public, even children can see the underhandedness in this matter.

If the judiciary thinks it can get away with these alleged serious and disconcerting habits, then it is in for a fat surprise. It is not difficult for citizens to turn away from the justice system. Some of us are already doubtful and view the assertion that our judiciary is a bastion of justice as an allegation that needs to be proven with concrete evidence.

The cases of Johnathan Beukes, Jeniffer Comalie and Michael Amushelelo may appear too small to those seated at the political-judicial table. This is the same way a comfortable, gullible person may look at sulphuric acid on a small lid poured into a large bundle of clothes made of cotton. Our judiciary, full of old, retiring men, will soon regret a regrettable regret. At present, their legacy is like an impala that is 20 metres away from a hungry lion.

*Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter.