Banner Left
Banner Right

Amupanda’s redline questis political, lawyer argues

Job Amupanda

AFFIRMATIVE Repositioning leader Job Amupanda’s attempt to have Namibia’s veterinary cordon fence (redline) removed is political in nature and based on a misconception, a lawyer argued in the Windhoek High Court on Friday.

“This is a political controversy,” senior counsel Raymond Heathcote said while addressing judge Shafimana Ueitele on applications to in effect have Amupanda’s court claim about the redlinedismissed.

Ueitele postponed the delivery of his judgement on the applications to 27 March at the end of the hearing of oral arguments.

Heathcote argued that “the political nature of his case was exposed” by “the political speeches” given by Amupanda when he testified in support of his claim about two weeks ago.

“Mister Amupanda should fight his battle in the political field,” said Heathcote, who is representing the Livestock and Livestock Products Board of Namibia.

He also argued that Amupanda’s “ideology is based on a misconception of historical facts”. That misconception is that the boundary of the colonial-era police zone, which was the part of Namibia south of most of the country’s northern communal areas, is the same as the veterinary cordon fence, but that is not correct, Heathcote argued.

Amupanda is claiming the redline is a colonial instrument that is unconstitutional, and that the fence is discriminatory.

He is asking the court to declare that the erection of the fence was unconstitutional, and to order the government to remove the fence immediately or within a period of 90 days.

According to the government, though, the redline was erected for legitimate and rational purposes, which are to prevent and control the spreading of animal diseases in Namibia.

In a plea in response to Amupanda’s claim, the government denies his allegation that the fence is aimed at restricting predominantly black people who live north of the redline.

One of the lawyers representing the government and minister of agriculture, water and land reform, Herman Steyn, noted o
n Friday that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease took place in Namibia in 1961 and was contained only by 1964.

Namibia’s veterinary cordon fence was erected in terms of the Animal Diseases and Parasites Ordinance of 1958 and 1959, Steyn said.

He added that in terms of the Animal Health Act of 2011, Namibia’s chief veterinary officer may have fences erected to control animal diseases.

With Amupanda not attacking the constitutionality of any part of the Animal Health Act, a fence can be re-erected immediately if the court were to order the removal of the current one, and that would be legal, Steyn argued.

Both Steyn and Frank Pelser, representing the Namibia Agricultural Union and commercial farmers Diethelm Metzger and Andre Compion, argued that Amupanda did not prove the veterinary cordon fence infringes his constitutional rights.

Pelser added that if there is a public outcry about the fence, it is something to be taken to the country’s political representatives to deal with.

Amupanda’s lead counsel, Mbushandje Ntinda, had a challenging time when his turn to address the court came, with Ueitele frequently testing his arguments and questioning the extent of the evidence Amupanda has placed before the court.

In written arguments filed at the court, Ntinda argued that the defendants have not been able to point out any law that erected the veterinary cordon fence.

With Namibia’s independence in 1990, the government took over the veterinary cordon fence or redline “as a tool, and continues to use it, in the same oppressive manner as it was used during apartheid”, Ntinda said in his written arguments.

“Such action and practice are unconstitutional,” he argued as well.

Stay informed with The Namibian – your source for credible journalism. Get in-depth reporting and opinions for only N$85 a month. Invest in journalism, invest in democracy –
Subscribe Now!

Latest News