Goats, Loophole Lawyers and Legal Gymnastics: Namibia’s Latest Debate

Recently, Namibians once again exercised their right to debate non-issues. This time, it was whether intelligence, hustle and beauty disqualify women from ministerial posts or even citizenship.

Just as we thought we’d exhausted our brain cells, in walked a lawyer, a self-appointed authority on Namibian law, with gibberish notes to ‘educate’ us on citizenship.

This made us wonder if they are truly brilliant or just another expert in exploiting legal silences?

Well, since expertise is now self-declared, let me also pretend to be an authority. Ek is nie bang nie!

Lawyering or Loophole Hunting?

Now, let’s talk about the unsolicited masterpiece of legal reasoning we were force-fed. Apparently, because the Namibian Constitution doesn’t explicitly say that non-voting members of parliament must be Namibian citizens, we should all assume it’s perfectly fine for foreigners to be appointed.

This is what happens when legal interpretation is treated like a treasure hunt. Apparently, if it’s not written in big, bold letters, it must be fair game.

They gave the same energy as a lawyer standing before a judge, arguing: “Your lordship, while the law frowns upon adultery, it does not explicitly state that the ‘kamboroto’ (mistress) may not relocate to the guest room. Therefore, my client did not cheat, he simply engaged in parallel accommodation. Besides, they never actually had sex, only engaged in sustained, enthusiastic kissing, which is legally unregulated behaviour. Furthermore, my lord, the complainant never caught them in the act. She merely saw them kissing. And since marriage vows do not explicitly state ‘Thou shalt not passionately embrace thy neighbour’s wife’, we submit that no legal violation has occurred.”

By this logic, if a law doesn’t specifically say “Thou shall not appoint a goat as a minister of agriculture”, then I guess we should start preparing for a boerbok to be sworn in because a goat knows more about goat rearing than an Ogongo College graduate.

On second thought, is it logical to subject citizens to stringent rules, like they must be Namibian to be an eligible voter, but then allow this well-controlled voter to have the spaces they voted for occupied by non-Namibians? Is that the logic the lawyer defends as the brilliance of the founding fathers and mothers?

Is he then protecting or ridiculing their legacy?

What infuriated me is that it was a non-issue to start with.

Namibians were just being themselves, uninformed and going mad over non-important matters to avoid their real responsibilities and lives.

This happens due to a lack of entertainment – DStv is crashing, the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation only runs streams from State House and One Africa is … do they still exist?

The point is, Namibians will talk, and it is their right. No lawyer can assume the right to ‘shhhush’ them.

But the real problem isn’t even the argument itself. It’s that some lawyers thrive on loopholes instead of actual legal reasoning.

Sovereignty and national policy aren’t technicalities. If voting members must be citizens, it’s common sense that anyone influencing national policy should also be tied to the country. Yet here we are, watching some legal minds stretch logic like an elastic band, all because they found a small silence in the law.

The Signature-Only Lawyers: Masters of Vanishing Acts

Now, let’s talk about undefeated lawyers – the legal geniuses that never lose a case, not because of brilliance, but because they only take cases that are already in the bag.

It’s simple – they just never take cases they might lose. They have juniors for that or will even instruct another firm.

And when they do take a case?

You won’t see them doing the heavy lifting. That’s junior counsel territory. The real brain-crushing research, the back-and-forth through case management, is left to the juniors still young enough to have working brain cells.

The big-name lawyer shows up for five minutes, throws around phrases like “With respect, my lord”, and disappears again. But if the case is won, they’ll be the first in line for the victory parade, chest out, taking credit for all the work they didn’t do.

And when a case is lost? Silence. Not a single mention of them in the newspapers. No statement. None of that “some people are cowards” punches.

The problem with lawyers who only work on legal loopholes and make it look like ‘real lawyering’ is that they turn justice into a game of technicalities instead of fairness. Instead of arguing the merits of a case, they hunt for obscure procedural missteps, vague wording or unintended gaps in legislation to get their clients off the hook, even when those clients are clearly in the wrong.

Maybe it’s time they sit down and we do this ourselves.

What we witnessed was Namibians from all spheres of life displaying what they are known for.

If this is the standard of legal gymnastics we’re dealing with, perhaps the Law Society of Namibia should consider a competency-based legal representation act. Administer a written and oral test that allows Namibians to represent themselves in court. After all, if legal success is just about finding the right loopholes, why waste money on lawyers when we can all start arguing technicalities ourselves?

Think about it.

If we are now expected to believe that silences in the law create permission, then surely, by the same logic, the Legal Practitioners Act’s silence on self-representation as a norm means we’re all eligible to practice law.

If legal reasoning has been reduced to “Well, it’s not explicitly prohibited”, then I see no reason why a motivated goat herder from Aranos can’t draft his own legal submissions.

What’s good for the loophole-loving lawyer should be good for the rest of us.