OPINIONS - COLUMNS
| 2013-08-09Juvenile Justice in Namibia: A Promise Deferred
Ndumba J Kamwanyah
THE protection of children–including the State’s responsibility to ensure that young children do not enter deeper into the criminal justice system – is a sacred duty. But where did Namibia go wrong? We have such an exemplary model for juvenile justice reform in Africa that Liberia found it appealing to send a high-level delegation to learn from Namibia’s best practice; that Mozambique had Namibia present at their first juvenile justice national conference; the fact that Malawi requested a staffer to be seconded to that country for few weeks in order to assist with their juvenile justice initiative.
This was a juvenile justice programme developed in 1994, a few years after Namibia’s independence, with the sole purpose of addressing the pressing issue of children in conflict with law. A prison survey conducted shortly after independence found that children in conflict with law were being kept in appalling conditions, which was contrary to the Namibian Constitution and international instruments of human rights.
The majority of them were incarcerated for crimes related to poor economic social status at home. Some reported being sexually molested while in police cells or prisons. Most had no legal representation and no separate cells. Others mentioned that their parents were not informed at the time of their arrests.
The key components of the Namibian juvenile justice programme were the screening of children at every step of the criminal justice system and the life skills diversion programmes. The screening process ensured that juveniles (based on their social and psychological needs) were matched to appropriate resources. And the diversion intervention programmes were aimed at promoting positive behaviour and civic responsibility, thereby reducing delinquency and criminal behaviour of juveniles.
In the years that followed, the Namibian juvenile justice programme (under the leadership of the Legal Assistance Centre) would become the perfect embodiment of how government and civic groups can work together to bring about necessary reforms and solve a country’s social problems: Juvenile justice forums, and trial-and-awaiting working groups, especially in Windhoek, were set up throughout the regions.
Juvenile justice training would be conducted in the regions, including at the Windhoek Police Training Academy for new recruits. In Windhoek, arrested juveniles would be assigned separate cells with police officers, prosecutors and magistrates. In addition, the LAC and Unicef would develop materials and guidelines for screening and diversions.
Led by the Ministry of Justice, also established was an inter-ministerial committee (IMC) on juvenile justice, a body that comprised of line ministries and various NGOs. The IMC was hailed as a milestone for juvenile justice in Namibia because its establishment signalled an overt stake of the Namibian government in taking over the leadership of the juvenile justice agenda in the country. Unlike the juvenile justice forum which consisted of people at the implementation level (professionals and semi-professionals), the IMC body was represented by people in decision-making positions from government ministries and NGOs.
The IMC would further succeed in mobilising the Namibian Cabinet to have a yearly ministers’ retreat on juvenile justice. And later they would have a full time programme manager, funded by the Austrian government, housed at the Windhoek Magistrate’s court. With the help of various consultants funded by the Austrian government, they (IMC) would also develop a working document (which clearly identified the problems and stipulated steps to be taken) on juvenile justice in Namibia, and a Draft Child Justice Bill.
Clearly, this was a country poised towards attaining a humane juvenile justice system that is in line with the Namibian Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child to which Namibia is a co-signatory.
However, a 2012 rapid analysis (funded by Unicef) conducted by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare (MGECW) on children in conflict with the law seems to suggest that the gains made have been reversed, and that the treatment of children in conflict still remains an issue of major concern. Apparently, the withdrawal of financial support by Austria in 2006 (which should not come as a surprise because international donors have their own interests and agendas), made Namibia’s juvenile justice difficult to sustain.
But the knowledge that 23 years after independence there is still no unified national legislation to deal with children in trouble with the law because the draft Child Justice Bill, now being referred as the Child Care and Protection Bill, is still not operational, should make those of us who were at the forefront of this reform greatly concerned. This is because what is slipping away is the promise to treat every Namibian child who comes in contact with our country’s legal system equally and in a dignified and respectful manner.
I am concerned – and you should be too!
THE protection of children–including the State’s responsibility to ensure that young children do not enter deeper into the criminal justice system – is a sacred duty. But where did Namibia go wrong? We have such an exemplary model for juvenile justice reform in Africa that Liberia found it appealing to send a high-level delegation to learn from Namibia’s best practice; that Mozambique had Namibia present at their first juvenile justice national conference; the fact that Malawi requested a staffer to be seconded to that country for few weeks in order to assist with their juvenile justice initiative.
This was a juvenile justice programme developed in 1994, a few years after Namibia’s independence, with the sole purpose of addressing the pressing issue of children in conflict with law. A prison survey conducted shortly after independence found that children in conflict with law were being kept in appalling conditions, which was contrary to the Namibian Constitution and international instruments of human rights.
The majority of them were incarcerated for crimes related to poor economic social status at home. Some reported being sexually molested while in police cells or prisons. Most had no legal representation and no separate cells. Others mentioned that their parents were not informed at the time of their arrests.
The key components of the Namibian juvenile justice programme were the screening of children at every step of the criminal justice system and the life skills diversion programmes. The screening process ensured that juveniles (based on their social and psychological needs) were matched to appropriate resources. And the diversion intervention programmes were aimed at promoting positive behaviour and civic responsibility, thereby reducing delinquency and criminal behaviour of juveniles.
In the years that followed, the Namibian juvenile justice programme (under the leadership of the Legal Assistance Centre) would become the perfect embodiment of how government and civic groups can work together to bring about necessary reforms and solve a country’s social problems: Juvenile justice forums, and trial-and-awaiting working groups, especially in Windhoek, were set up throughout the regions.
Juvenile justice training would be conducted in the regions, including at the Windhoek Police Training Academy for new recruits. In Windhoek, arrested juveniles would be assigned separate cells with police officers, prosecutors and magistrates. In addition, the LAC and Unicef would develop materials and guidelines for screening and diversions.
Led by the Ministry of Justice, also established was an inter-ministerial committee (IMC) on juvenile justice, a body that comprised of line ministries and various NGOs. The IMC was hailed as a milestone for juvenile justice in Namibia because its establishment signalled an overt stake of the Namibian government in taking over the leadership of the juvenile justice agenda in the country. Unlike the juvenile justice forum which consisted of people at the implementation level (professionals and semi-professionals), the IMC body was represented by people in decision-making positions from government ministries and NGOs.
The IMC would further succeed in mobilising the Namibian Cabinet to have a yearly ministers’ retreat on juvenile justice. And later they would have a full time programme manager, funded by the Austrian government, housed at the Windhoek Magistrate’s court. With the help of various consultants funded by the Austrian government, they (IMC) would also develop a working document (which clearly identified the problems and stipulated steps to be taken) on juvenile justice in Namibia, and a Draft Child Justice Bill.
Clearly, this was a country poised towards attaining a humane juvenile justice system that is in line with the Namibian Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child to which Namibia is a co-signatory.
However, a 2012 rapid analysis (funded by Unicef) conducted by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare (MGECW) on children in conflict with the law seems to suggest that the gains made have been reversed, and that the treatment of children in conflict still remains an issue of major concern. Apparently, the withdrawal of financial support by Austria in 2006 (which should not come as a surprise because international donors have their own interests and agendas), made Namibia’s juvenile justice difficult to sustain.
But the knowledge that 23 years after independence there is still no unified national legislation to deal with children in trouble with the law because the draft Child Justice Bill, now being referred as the Child Care and Protection Bill, is still not operational, should make those of us who were at the forefront of this reform greatly concerned. This is because what is slipping away is the promise to treat every Namibian child who comes in contact with our country’s legal system equally and in a dignified and respectful manner.
I am concerned – and you should be too!
