Method In Their Madness?

By: GWEN LISTER

TWO of the most vocal and visible Swapo cadres at present are Paulus Kapia and Alfred Angula, from the Youth League and Nafwu respectively. Both leave a lot to be desired and it is quite scary to think that these people who engage in what is tantamount to war talk may be given key posts in Government at some time in the future.

KAPIA, for example, who seemed to be keeping a low profile until he

recently lashed at out 'wrong judges' because of the ruling that 13

Caprivi treason suspects be released, really gets people's blood on

the boil.

But then so does Angula, for different reasons, with his similar

statements.

 

One lashes out at the judiciary, the other the white farming

community, but both make the kind of statement that makes one

wonder whether reconciliation ever meant anything to them at

all.

 

Kapia, I thought, had 'gone to ground' because his threatened

'lists' (which have not yet seen the light of day) were rather too

close to the bone as far as Government was concerned, and he

presumably had been quietly told off.

 

But he's apparently recovered from the rebuke, if ever he

received one, and is now intent on stripping away the independence

of the judiciary, and will no doubt soon make calls that only

'comrades' get these jobs as well! The question most people seem to

be asking is: Who pulls these guys' strings? Many think that they

wouldn't go out on a limb if not told to do so, but this is of

course conjecture at this point, and they may truly be loose

cannons who don't need any political prompting to say the things

they do.

 

As self-appointed guardians of the Namibian nation (and both

claim to be speaking on behalf of the people of this country), they

and certain others really ought to acquaint themselves with the

Constitution.

 

The independence of the judiciary is enshrined therein, and

while we may freely criticise judgements (after all, there is no

good reason why the courts and those who preside over them, like

everyone else, cannot be taken to task) we have to stop short of

accusing judges of 'sabotage', 'disloyalty' and being

'unpatriotic'.

 

We might not like the judgement that has been given, but then

let it be criticised on its merits, not the person who handed down

the verdict criticised on his or hers.

 

Saying that judges who do not rule according to the

"expectations of the majority must pack and go" shows a bloody

cheek.

 

Who does Kapia think he is to determine who should stay or who

should leave? For a judge to rule as Kapia as requested should

ensure his or her removal from the Bench, for then the judges will

not be exercising their function according to the tenets of the

law, but on the basis of personal prejudice, which is absolutely no

good at all for any society governed by the rule of law.

 

And this supposedly is one.

 

If he's got nothing constructive to say, then Kapia shouldn't

say anything at all, but I'm sure that this is advice which will

fall on deaf ears! Likewise, Alfred Angula prides himself on being

a labour and land expert.

 

Again, I have no problem with his expressing opinions on the

evictions or any other matter concerned with farmers and their

labour relations, but there are ways and means of doing it that

could promote conciliation rather than confrontation.

 

Sometimes one tends to believe that the threats delivered by the

two cadres referred to are geared precisely towards igniting a

potentially explosive situation which would be unfortunate for all

concerned.

 

In the case of the Caprivi 13, the Government ordered the

rearrest of those released by the courts, in itself a decision

taken in bad faith.

 

As for the land-and-labour issues, the Government has promised

expropriation in an announcement whose fine detail has not been

properly spelt out, and until this is done the new policy will only

result in further turmoil as people try to second-guess how it will

be implemented or who will be affected.

 

It is unwise to make statements such as these while leaving the

detail until later.

 

So, while Kapia and Angula seem to be far out in their volatile

utterances, maybe they're not that far removed from Government

positions on these issues after all.

 

Could it be there's method in the apparent madness of allowing

these two to scapegoat others for Government failures? And in an

election year too?

 

But then so does Angula, for different reasons, with his similar

statements. One lashes out at the judiciary, the other the white

farming community, but both make the kind of statement that makes

one wonder whether reconciliation ever meant anything to them at

all. Kapia, I thought, had 'gone to ground' because his threatened

'lists' (which have not yet seen the light of day) were rather too

close to the bone as far as Government was concerned, and he

presumably had been quietly told off. But he's apparently recovered

from the rebuke, if ever he received one, and is now intent on

stripping away the independence of the judiciary, and will no doubt

soon make calls that only 'comrades' get these jobs as well! The

question most people seem to be asking is: Who pulls these guys'

strings? Many think that they wouldn't go out on a limb if not told

to do so, but this is of course conjecture at this point, and they

may truly be loose cannons who don't need any political prompting

to say the things they do. As self-appointed guardians of the

Namibian nation (and both claim to be speaking on behalf of the

people of this country), they and certain others really ought to

acquaint themselves with the Constitution. The independence of the

judiciary is enshrined therein, and while we may freely criticise

judgements (after all, there is no good reason why the courts and

those who preside over them, like everyone else, cannot be taken to

task) we have to stop short of accusing judges of 'sabotage',

'disloyalty' and being 'unpatriotic'. We might not like the

judgement that has been given, but then let it be criticised on its

merits, not the person who handed down the verdict criticised on

his or hers. Saying that judges who do not rule according to the

"expectations of the majority must pack and go" shows a bloody

cheek. Who does Kapia think he is to determine who should stay or

who should leave? For a judge to rule as Kapia as requested should

ensure his or her removal from the Bench, for then the judges will

not be exercising their function according to the tenets of the

law, but on the basis of personal prejudice, which is absolutely no

good at all for any society governed by the rule of law. And this

supposedly is one. If he's got nothing constructive to say, then

Kapia shouldn't say anything at all, but I'm sure that this is

advice which will fall on deaf ears! Likewise, Alfred Angula prides

himself on being a labour and land expert. Again, I have no problem

with his expressing opinions on the evictions or any other matter

concerned with farmers and their labour relations, but there are

ways and means of doing it that could promote conciliation rather

than confrontation. Sometimes one tends to believe that the threats

delivered by the two cadres referred to are geared precisely

towards igniting a potentially explosive situation which would be

unfortunate for all concerned. In the case of the Caprivi 13, the

Government ordered the rearrest of those released by the courts, in

itself a decision taken in bad faith. As for the land-and-labour

issues, the Government has promised expropriation in an

announcement whose fine detail has not been properly spelt out, and

until this is done the new policy will only result in further

turmoil as people try to second-guess how it will be implemented or

who will be affected. It is unwise to make statements such as these

while leaving the detail until later. So, while Kapia and Angula

seem to be far out in their volatile utterances, maybe they're not

that far removed from Government positions on these issues after

all. Could it be there's method in the apparent madness of allowing

these two to scapegoat others for Government failures? And in an

election year too?

---