Judge Hoff Just Implemented the Criminal Procedures Act
IT IS becoming exhausting and boring to read in your paper on a daily basis about attacks on Judge Elton Hoff's ruling that the 13 Caprivi treason suspects were illegally brought to Namibia and/or that the high court had no jurisdiction to try them.
First of all, allow me to air my opinion and understanding of this
whole issue.
Judge Hoff's ruling was neither that these suspects were
acquitted nor that they did not participate in committing high
treason.
It was a mere ruling on irregularities and the unprocedural
manner in which they were brought before the court.
People in Namibia should bear in mind that Namibia is a
constitutional State i.e.
the Constitution is the supreme law of this country.
In terms of chapter 9 article 78 (3) of the Constitution it
says: "No member of the executive/cabinet or the legislature or any
other person shall interfere with judge's or judicial officers in
the exercise of their judicial functions" This clearly identifies
the independence of the judiciary bodies.
To give you a much clearer picture about the judiciary system -
Namibia does not have a Criminal Procedure Act of its own.
Our legal system in Namibia adheres to the legal principle of
the South African Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977.
Our courts, when hearing matters, have limited jurisdictions
e.g.
if somebody commits a crime in Swakopmund and this suspect is
later arrested in Keetmanshoop, the court in Keetmanshoop cannot
try this suspect/accused for the crime committed in Swakopmund as
it has no jurisdiction to try him and as the crime was committed
outside of its magisterial district or boundaries.
Therefore, that suspect must be transferred from that court,
procedurally to the court in Swakopmund to be tried there because
this court has jurisdiction over the crime.
Another good example is the US.
They arrested Saddam Hussein but they cannot try him, as he did
not commit any crime in the US.
The US does not have any jurisdiction to try him.
Look at the five Britons that were held in Guantanamo by the US,
they have been released by the US, as the US has no jurisdiction to
try them.
Coming back to the Caprivi issue, Judge Hoff did not give a
verdict that these suspects were not guilty.
He, the judge, only ruled that his court couldn't try them
because of the manner in which these accused were brought before
him was unprocedural.
But they can still be tried.
They can be released and the correct procedure can be followed
and they can be extradited procedurally and brought before the
court again.
They are not acquitted, understand this.
If one does not know the criminal procedure, then stay out of
that business and mind your own.
Remember, a judge is neither a political appointee nor is the
judiciary a political party.
A judge is like a referee at a soccer match.
When a referee listens to the spectators when conducting a game,
what a mess that game will become.
Stay out of judicial matters that do not concern you.
Do not interfere with your little knowledge.
Jimmy K.N. Kaulinge
Swakopmund
Judge Hoff's ruling was neither that these suspects were acquitted
nor that they did not participate in committing high treason.It was
a mere ruling on irregularities and the unprocedural manner in
which they were brought before the court.People in Namibia should
bear in mind that Namibia is a constitutional State i.e.the
Constitution is the supreme law of this country.In terms of chapter
9 article 78 (3) of the Constitution it says: "No member of the
executive/cabinet or the legislature or any other person shall
interfere with judge's or judicial officers in the exercise of
their judicial functions" This clearly identifies the independence
of the judiciary bodies.To give you a much clearer picture about
the judiciary system - Namibia does not have a Criminal Procedure
Act of its own.Our legal system in Namibia adheres to the legal
principle of the South African Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of
1977.Our courts, when hearing matters, have limited jurisdictions
e.g.if somebody commits a crime in Swakopmund and this suspect is
later arrested in Keetmanshoop, the court in Keetmanshoop cannot
try this suspect/accused for the crime committed in Swakopmund as
it has no jurisdiction to try him and as the crime was committed
outside of its magisterial district or boundaries.Therefore, that
suspect must be transferred from that court, procedurally to the
court in Swakopmund to be tried there because this court has
jurisdiction over the crime.Another good example is the US.They
arrested Saddam Hussein but they cannot try him, as he did not
commit any crime in the US.The US does not have any jurisdiction to
try him.Look at the five Britons that were held in Guantanamo by
the US, they have been released by the US, as the US has no
jurisdiction to try them.Coming back to the Caprivi issue, Judge
Hoff did not give a verdict that these suspects were not guilty.He,
the judge, only ruled that his court couldn't try them because of
the manner in which these accused were brought before him was
unprocedural.But they can still be tried.They can be released and
the correct procedure can be followed and they can be extradited
procedurally and brought before the court again.They are not
acquitted, understand this.If one does not know the criminal
procedure, then stay out of that business and mind your
own.Remember, a judge is neither a political appointee nor is the
judiciary a political party.A judge is like a referee at a soccer
match.When a referee listens to the spectators when conducting a
game, what a mess that game will become.Stay out of judicial
matters that do not concern you.Do not interfere with your little
knowledge.Jimmy K.N. Kaulinge
Swakopmund