Itula demands urgent hearing date

A LAWYER representing former presidential candidate Panduleni Itula has written to the Supreme Court on an urgent basis to demand that a date be set for the hearing of Itula’s attempt to get the court to revisit its decision not to set aside Namibia’s 2019 presidential election and not to order a repeat of the election.

Itula’s legal representative Elize Angula made the demand for a hearing date yesterday, following a letter in which the Supreme Court’s registrar on Wednesday informed Angula that the court would not be hearing an urgent application by Itula that was filed on 11 February.

In that application, Itula wanted the court to revisit and alter its judgement, delivered on 5 February, on a legal challenge in which he tried to have the 2019 presidential election set aside and rerun. In the Supreme Court’s judgement, five judges of the court unanimously decided not to set aside the election despite finding that the use of electronic voting machines without a verifiable paper trail in the election had been unlawful.

In the application that was filed six days after the delivery of the court’s judgement, Itula argued that the court contravened its own principles, claiming that it based a huge part of its ruling on an issue that was not argued by the parties that were before the court.

The court, however, stated in its judgement that the validity of the election of office-bearers elected under the 2014 Electoral Act before 21 March 2020 would not be affected by its finding despite declaring the elections conducted with EVMs without verifiable paper trail invalid.

Itula – a dentist and Swapo member – ran as an independent candidate in the presidential election, in which he garnered about 29% of the votes cast, losing to fellow Swapo member and incumbent president Hage Geingob, who received 56% of the votes cast.

The Supreme Court’s registrar on Wednesday informed Itula’s lawyers that his election challenge had been finalised and “that a final and binding judgement had been delivered by the court”.

The registrar added that the steps contemplated in Itula’s application that was filed at the court on 11 February “will accordingly not proceed in this court”.

In a letter addressed to the registrar, Angula yesterday claimed the registrar’s letter the previous day was “written without legal authority and is ineffective”. Angula also claimed that the letter “does not purport to be written on behalf of the five judges” who heard the matter in January, and, therefore, “it is not the court’s letter”.

“No statute, nor rule of court of which our client is aware, however, vests the registrar with the power to pronounce upon a proceeding in the terms set out in your letter,” Angula’s letter read.

In another letter that Angula sent to the registrar yesterday, she demanded that Itula’s 11 February application should be enrolled for a hearing.

“We accordingly respectfully request that, in view of our application for a hearing date, the matter be enrolled for hearing by the court itself,” the letter reads.

Office of the Judiciary spokesperson Ockert Jansen confirmed yesterday that the letter sent by the registrar on Wednesday reflected a decision made by the judges of the Supreme Court and not that of the registrar.