Time To Exercise Faith
SHATTERED, devastated, tormented, dismayed, livid, ... do not begin to describe the state we, family members of the deceased, are in right now. For most, it has opened deep old wounds of the fateful date of 13 July 2008. It helps to note the public’s solidarity on the issue however. It also helps a lot to note the Justice Minister’s shock at the sentence as she does not believe it represents the country’s justice system in its true light.
Judge Kato Van Niekerk has sent shock waves after she passed the ‘sentence’, if it at all qualifies to be called that, to Lazarus Shaduka, who took a life of his wife and mother of his then 11-month-old child. This has left most of us bewildered and our justice system a mockery. How someone can represent the state, the society and in particular, women and at the same time pronounce a ‘sentence’ of 1 year or 25 000/27 000 fine is beyond me. This must be a record in the history of court cases in the land!
As a relative of the deceased, I have been attending most of the court proceedings. Being my first appearance in court as a member of the audience, I must say in my opinion that the case did not receive the seriousness that it deserves right from the start. This was evident in the way communication in the courtroom was practised. One could barely make out what exactly was happening there, what issues were being discussed - everybody simply did not speak up (the lawyers, translator, the judge). One’s presence in that courtroom was therefore at some point meaningless. After sharing our concerns, things improved a little but the overall proceedings in this particular courtroom left us unimpressed. Hopefully this is not the case in other courtrooms in the country, for that would be a big pity!
In my little reading up on laws and conviction, two conditions should be met for a case to be classified as murder. One: there must be an act, that is, killing; and two, there must be an intention. According to the defence lawyer and the judge, the second condition seems not to have been met and hence the pronouncement of culpable homicide, which in layman’s language means ‘unintentional killing’. The two of them also chanted the chorus of “there is not enough evidence to classify the case as murder“. This is ironic as enough evidence has been presented and some of it denied by the same court as being hearsay, unfounded and unnecessary. They made it clear that the court is not interested in long stories about the life of the couple but only in the events on the day of the murder. One must be narrow-minded to think that a death of a wife by a husband is a result of one event. Surely, there should be some history leading to the fatal gunshot. It is that history that would provide the evidence needed to convict this man – the evidence that he had intended to kill his wife!
If somebody is killed in the absence of an eye-witness, then the next things to look for are historical events leading to that death. In this case, it would then be previous cases of the couple recorded by the police, confiscation of the accused’s firearm by the police at one point, death threats, testimonies of people who were aware of the domestic abuse happening in that household, medical reports confirming assault of the deceased by the husband, and all that she was enduring. All this was presented before court.
The court is also aware that the accused gave three (if not more) different versions of how the deceased died and the court decided to believe the very last version. Instead, our court decided to invest its energy in dwelling on the accused’s businesses and how negatively affected they have been during his time in custody. This is a big insult to us. One wonders whether this is a feature of the capitalist system that we live in, where money surfaces above all else. It is also ironic for the accused and the court to imply that because he has been in custody, the ‘prominent’ businessman who also happens to be the breadwinner in the family has been unable to provide for his extended family. Have they thought of the body that is lying six feet under? Have they considered that the same deceased is now unable to feed her now 3-year-old baby?
A message may now have been sent out Namibian men now know that they can kill, assault and abuse and still get away with it. If we cannot seek refuge in the law, then we don’t know where else to turn. The state has dismally failed us!
We are trying to come to terms with this state of affairs, in the meantime exercising our faith during these difficult times, taking cognisance that there is an eye up there, and hope that justice in this case will be finally served. May her soul continue to rest in eternal peace!
Taimi Nghikembua
Via e-mail
Note: We once again ask our readers to take note that while there is understandable community reaction to the sentence of Shaduka, particularly given the recent spate of violence against women, Judge Kato van Niekerk was acting in accordance with the laws, crucially the fact that we have no legislation on hearsay evidence. Had such legislation been in place here, as it is in South Africa, the sentence could have been different. It is therefore up to the Minister of Justice to check the laws rather than join the chorus of condemnation when the matter rests squarely before her door. - Ed