Affirmative Repositioning (AR) leader Job Amupanda faces criticism for accusing High Court judge Shafimana Ueitele of ‘mishandling’ his redline removal trial.
Amupanda, who is also an incoming member of parliament, wants the court to declare Namibia’s veterinary cordon fence (redline) unconstitutional.
The fence blocks northern and north-eastern farmers from the lucrative meat market in central Namibia over fear of spreading illnesses like foot-and-mouth disease.
Amupanda has in the past described the redline as an injustice from the apartheid era against northerners.
Legal experts, however, say his sentiments about Ueitele are uncalled for.
Lawyer Norman Tjombe says while any member of the public has the right to freedom of expression and speech, critique of the conduct of a judge or rulings of a court must be done in an appropriate manner.
“The attack on the person and office of justice Ueitele is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for.
The comments and statements against justice Ueitele are dangerous, and have the effect of eroding the public trust in the institution of the court,” he says.
He says article 78 of Namibia’s Constitution warns against interference in the judicial functions of judges.
“Several avenues are available to a litigant or a member of the public if aggrieved by a court, including to refer a matter to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for further investigation and/or ventilate the issues in the pending litigation.
“The continued attack on the court by a litigant appearing before the same court is tantamount to the interference of the functions of the court,” Tjombe says.
‘NOT ABOVE CRITICISM’
Former ombudsman John Walters says judges and magistrates are, however, not above criticism.
“But when these criticisms are regarded as insults of ridicule to a presiding judge or magistrate […] the presiding officer must take immediate action and punish the person for contempt of court,” he says.
Walters says criticising a judge would not necessarily erode the public’s trust in the judiciary.
“I believe judges took the oath that they will fairly and independently adjudicate a case, any case which comes before them. So, if that does not happen, then the foundation of one of the pillars of our democracy is in jeopardy,” he says.
Lawyer Richard Metcalfe says the “cardinal rule” in any litigation trial is that once the trial commences, there is no comment by the litigants to the media on anything that transpires in court.
“This prevails until the court has given its verdict, thereafter fair comment, and even criticism is the constitutional right of any party,” he says.
He defended Ueitele, who questioned the preparedness of the lawyers who presented the case for the removal of the redline.
‘JUNIOR LAWYERS SPOILED’
“Justice Uietele has rightly guided unprepared legal practitioners. Junior legal practitioners are absolutely spoiled by patient, kind and tolerant judicial officers who now preside in our courts,” he says.
Metcalfe says during the tenure of previous judges of the High Court, there was zero tolerance for legal practitioners, whether they were seniors or juniors, “who dared present shoddy cases and who were unprepared for court”.
He says all judicial officers have the potential for perceived conflicts of interest.
This is why they are carefully selected by the JSC to ensure they have or harbour no preconceived prejudice prior to or during a hearing of a matter, he says.
“They are expected to remain impartial at all times. Criticism for poor presentation or lack of preparation by a judge is not an indication of prejudice,” Metcalfe says.
He says Amupanda “seems to think he can salvage his dented ego and weak case by subverting an obvious verdict by ensuring recusal of the presiding judge by sly innuendo”.
“We expect our politicians to respect our judiciary,” Metcalfe says.
In a series of statements, Amupanda has questioned Ueitele’s objectivity after revelations that the first defendant in the redline case, minister of agriculture, water and land reform Calle Schlettwein, granted Ueitele – together with hundreds of other farm owners – a land tax exemption in August 2024.
“Is there a family that is blessed with free farms south of the 1896 redline by the corrupt regime more than the Ueitele family?” Amupanda posted on social media this week.
He claimed Ueitele and his family have benefited from government farms.
“It is important to note that Festus Ueitele, the judge’s brother, served as chairperson of a committee that recommends who in the Omaheke region gets free farms from the corrupt regime for close to eight years,” Amupanda wrote.
He lodged a complaint against Ueitele with the JSC on 5 February.
“The matter is currently under consideration, and the JSC is therefore unable to comment at this time,” judiciary spokesperson Victoria Hango said yesterday.
Amupanda did not respond to questions sent to him.
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!
