President Mbumba says no to Ekandjo’s anti-gay bills

President Nangolo Mbumba has declined to sign Swapo parliamentarian Jerry Ekandjo’s private member’s bills against same-sex marriage.

This due to the constitutional implications of doing so.

Minister in the Presidency Christine //Hoebes revealed this in the parliament on Thursday.

She was responding to Ekandjo demanding an update on the status of his proposed bills.

Ekandjo last week accused //Hoebes of playing “cat and mouse” over his bills, as she has been absent from the parliament.

The minister on Thursday said Mbumba declined to sign the bills aiming to amend the definition of the terms ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’, which were passed by the National Assembly (NA) to prevent same-sex marriages in Namibia and to criminalise homosexuality in the country.

She said the bills were not passed by a two-thirds majority in the NA and also presented constitutional challenges.

Ekandjo tabled his two bills in 2023, seeking to criminalise those who violate the law against same-sex marriage and punish them with a fine of N$100 000 or up to six years’ imprisonment.

//Hoebes said following the succession of former president Hage Geingob, Mbumba was informed on the matter and, amid competing national obligations, had to re-engage the process to ensure the bills meet substantive and procedural constitutional requirements.

“In considering the bills, the president was concerned about whether they have gone through a proper law-making process.

“More generally, the assessment related to the process under the tutelage of the parliament, and specifically whether it would meet the constitutional test and the additional procedural requirements . . ,” //Hoebes said.

She said the bills fall short of meeting some basic norms and standards of legislative drafting in the Namibian context.

//Hoebes said the president was rightfully concerned about the possible constitutional implications the bills may have, given they were not subjected to a constitutionality review or drafting guidance before they were tabled and passed by the parliament.

She said the president could not assent to the bills knowing the potential constitutional implications thereof.

This is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, she said