No Special Rights

ALLOW me to air some comments regarding former President Nujoma’s legal action against The Namibian.

Disclaimer: It is important for the interested reader to note that I do not wish to respond to Sam Nujoma as an individual, but instead to the claim he makes in his accusation. In short, let’s just say there’s nothing personal here.Without beating around the bush, Nujoma is essentially claiming that the newspaper implied that he was corrupt by reporting as-yet unproven allegations against him contained in Avril Green’s affidavit.This argument is unacceptable for the following reasons.Firstly, the report in The Namibian was simply a positive account of progress in the SSC/Avid enquiry, and contained no value judgements.Green’s (sworn) affidavit was a fresh development in the enquiry and was, by all standards, worthy of disclosure to the Namibian public.That the claims contained therein were not necessarily true is not the point.Rather, the point is that such claims were made and the claimant swore to them before the Court.Needless to say, the burden of proof for those allegations does not lie with The Namibian, but instead with Avril Green, who brought them up in the first place.This brings up the following question: Why would Sam Nujoma not to sue Green, who is the primary author of these allegations? Secondly, what makes Nujoma more special than any of the other suspects, like Kandara and Josea, who were alleged to be involved in the SSC/Avid scandal? Allegations against them were reported in the media, without any clear indication as to whether they were true.And appropriately so, because the idea behind the media reports was obviously not to prove any allegations, but instead to keep the public posted on an issue of national interest.Just because the former President contributed to the liberation of this country, a heroic act that many Namibians do not fail to acknowledge, doesn’t mean that any allegations of wrongdoing on his part can’t be reported.When it comes to matters concerning the law, Nujoma has no special rights or advantage over anybody.What Nujoma’s lawyers seem to suggest is that the media in general, and The Namibian in particular, should not have reported on Green’s affidavit, particularly that part that implicated Nujoma, simply because it would ruin his international image as former President.How convenient! In passing, I have a word of advice for organisations like the NUNW, who have a rather boring tendency of always lashing out at any fly that comes near Nujoma or Swapo.It is well known that the NUNW is a Swapo affiliate, and (questionably) this binds the union to be generally pro-Nujoma.Now this does not surprise anyone, but when commenting on issues like Sam Nujoma’s legal action against The Namibian, it is important for the NUNW to respond to the actual arguments made by Misa and the NSHR without any appeal to “guilt by association”.It is not reasonable to refute MISA’s argument exclusively on the basis that Misa has a so-called anti-Nujoma track record.If a thief tells you that stealing is bad, does it mean he/she has no point? Or if a fat person argues that obesity is bad for your health, do you just say they are lying? Please, Mr Kaaronda, learn to respond to the argument, rather than to the person bringing it forth.Otherwise, what is your point? Finally, here’s hoping that true justice prevails in this case and that, most importantly, the result teaches Nujoma and several other “high-flyers” that their status does not put them one inch above the law.Allergic to Corruption University of Cape TownIn short, let’s just say there’s nothing personal here.Without beating around the bush, Nujoma is essentially claiming that the newspaper implied that he was corrupt by reporting as-yet unproven allegations against him contained in Avril Green’s affidavit.This argument is unacceptable for the following reasons.Firstly, the report in The Namibian was simply a positive account of progress in the SSC/Avid enquiry, and contained no value judgements.Green’s (sworn) affidavit was a fresh development in the enquiry and was, by all standards, worthy of disclosure to the Namibian public.That the claims contained therein were not necessarily true is not the point.Rather, the point is that such claims were made and the claimant swore to them before the Court.Needless to say, the burden of proof for those allegations does not lie with The Namibian, but instead with Avril Green, who brought them up in the first place.This brings up the following question: Why would Sam Nujoma not to sue Green, who is the primary author of these allegations? Secondly, what makes Nujoma more special than any of the other suspects, like Kandara and Josea, who were alleged to be involved in the SSC/Avid scandal? Allegations against them were reported in the media, without any clear indication as to whether they were true.And appropriately so, because the idea behind the media reports was obviously not to prove any allegations, but instead to keep the public posted on an issue of national interest.Just because the former President contributed to the liberation of this country, a heroic act that many Namibians do not fail to acknowledge, doesn’t mean that any allegations of wrongdoing on his part can’t be reported.When it comes to matters concerning the law, Nujoma has no special rights or advantage over anybody.What Nujoma’s lawyers seem to suggest is that the media in general, and The Namibian in particular, should not have reported on Green’s affidavit, particularly that part that implicated Nujoma, simply because it would ruin his international image as former President.How convenient! In passing, I have a word of advice for organisations like the NUNW, who have a rather boring tendency of always lashing out at any fly that comes near Nujoma or Swapo.It is well known that the NUNW is a Swapo affiliate, and (questionably) this binds the union to be generally pro-Nujoma.Now this does not surprise anyone, but when commenting on issues like Sam Nujoma’s legal action against The Namibian, it is important for the NUNW to respond to the actual arguments made by Misa and the NSHR without any appeal to “guilt by association”.It is not reasonable to refute MISA’s argument exclusively on the basis that Misa has a so-called anti-Nujoma track record.If a thief tells you that stealing is bad, does it mean he/she has no point? Or if a fat person argues that obesity is bad for your health, do you just say they are lying? Please, Mr Kaaronda, learn to respond to the argument, rather than to the person bringing it forth.Otherwise, what is your point? Finally, here’s hoping that true justice prevails in this case and that, most importantly, the result teaches Nujoma and several other “high-flyers” that their status does not put them one inch above the law.Allergic to Corruption University of Cape Town