Time For Divorce

WHEN Cde Ithana speaks or pronounces herself on a number of controversial issues, I usually ask myself one question: is she speaking as the Minister of Justice or as Attorney General? You remember how she closed that case of missing millions in bogus arms deals at the Ministry of Defence? And now recently, she said they were not in a hurry to prosecute those who lied in court during the Avid investment inquiry – those Judge Raymond Heathcote referred to as ‘serial perjurers’ – including the PS at Trade.

Her Ministry is never in a hurry and that’s perhaps why we have a backlog of cases dating back to the 1990s. And so is the Prosecutor General’s Office.Or is it sheer incompetence on the part of those who have been catapulted into high office without any solid legal experience to speak of – the flipside of affirmative action? Personally, I’m not quite comfortable with this marriage between the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice – one constitutional, the other political.The Attorney General should, ideally, be someone who has a broader and deeper understanding of the law – through extensive and intensive training and practice.You would need someone there who is able to maintain a critical distance on issues before pronouncing him or herself – not a politician who is at liberty to play the game of politics.The other question is this, and here I’m appealing to Namibia’s constitutional experts to tell us: who is, or ought to be, responsible for the administration of justice in Namibia? Is it the Ministry of Justice or the Judiciary? In Chapter 9, Article 78 of the Namibian Constitution, which deals with the administration of justice, no mention is made of the Ministry of Justice.But if you browse the Ministry’s website, it starts with this bold statement: “The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the administration of justice through the courts of law.”Going back to Article 78 (3), it states that: “No member of the Cabinet or the Legislature or any other shall interfere with Judges or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions, and all organs of the State shall accord such assistance as the Courts may require to protect their independence, dignity and effectiveness, subject to the terms of this Constitution or any other law.”Now, I know that Ithana has had a lot of fights with magistrates on a number of issues – including wholesale transfer from one duty station to another.So, you have a member of both the Cabinet and Legislature deciding on matters that belong to the judicial arm of the Government.And here Ithana actually gets three legs – one in the Executive, one in the Legislature and the other in the Judiciary – because she oversees the courts and has supervisory responsibility for the Prosecutor General’s Office.This is an anomaly.There is a lot of grey area here with possible overlaps and interferences.It’s like she has entered the judicial arm through the back door.She makes the laws, executes and enforces them at the same time.This marriage was short-sighted and it’s now time for a divorce.Let’s restore the Attorney General’s Office to its proper constitutional place.Or is my reading of our Constitution somehow flawed? Let’s hear from the constitutional experts.Alex T.Kaure Liberi , West AfricaAnd so is the Prosecutor General’s Office.Or is it sheer incompetence on the part of those who have been catapulted into high office without any solid legal experience to speak of – the flipside of affirmative action? Personally, I’m not quite comfortable with this marriage between the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice – one constitutional, the other political.The Attorney General should, ideally, be someone who has a broader and deeper understanding of the law – through extensive and intensive training and practice.You would need someone there who is able to maintain a critical distance on issues before pronouncing him or herself – not a politician who is at liberty to play the game of politics.The other question is this, and here I’m appealing to Namibia’s constitutional experts to tell us: who is, or ought to be, responsible for the administration of justice in Namibia? Is it the Ministry of Justice or the Judiciary? In Chapter 9, Article 78 of the Namibian Constitution, which deals with the administration of justice, no mention is made of the Ministry of Justice.But if you browse the Ministry’s website, it starts with this bold statement: “The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the administration of justice through the courts of law.”Going back to Article 78 (3), it states that: “No member of the Cabinet or the Legislature or any other shall interfere with Judges or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions, and all organs of the State shall accord such assistance as the Courts may require to protect their independence, dignity and effectiveness, subject to the terms of this Constitution or any other law.”Now, I know that Ithana has had a lot of fights with magistrates on a number of issues – including wholesale transfer from one duty station to another.So, you have a member of both the Cabinet and Legislature deciding on matters that belong to the judicial arm of the Government.And here Ithana actually gets three legs – one in the Executive, one in the Legislature and the other in the Judiciary – because she oversees the courts and has supervisory responsibility for the Prosecutor General’s Office.This is an anomaly.There is a lot of grey area here with possible overlaps and interferences.It’s like she has entered the judicial arm through the back door.She makes the laws, executes and enforces them at the same time.This marriage was short-sighted and it’s now time for a divorce.Let’s restore the Attorney General’s Office to its proper constitutional place.Or is my reading of our Constitution somehow flawed? Let’s hear from the constitutional experts.Alex T.Kaure Liberi , West Africa