NSHR hits back at Justice Minister

THE National Society for Human Rights claims that the Amnesty Proclamation of 1989 had nothing to do with national reconciliation as envisaged in Namibia’s Constitution.

It was reacting to a statement by Attorney General Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana – on Tuesday in the National Assembly – that the country’s policy of national reconciliation was founded on the proclamation. The NSHR said the Amnesty Proclamation was to avoid criminal prosecution after Independence against anyone in respect of any criminal offences perpetrated by members of the warring parties before Independence.However, the NSHR argued that immunity from prosecution as envisaged in South African Administrator Louis Pienaar’s Amnesty Proclamation (AG 13 of 1989) was a product of a representative of the former apartheid regime, who was not elected by Namibians.”Who elected AG Louis Pienaar? Hence, the impression being created by Attorney General and Justice Minister Iivula-Ithana through her ministerial statement yesterday is for that very reason dismissed as misleading,” the NSHR said in a statement.The rights body said the amnesty only covered crimes committed prior to June 7 1989 and not thereafter.”Those crimes of enforced disappearance perpetrated in the Ohangwena, Kavango and Caprivi Regions between 1994 and 2003 are therefore not covered by the said proclamation.Therefore for all legal purposes, AG 13 of 1989 constitutes an impermissible national legislation, which has a retrospective effect.Therein are the illegitimacy and assailability of AG Pienaar’s AG 13 of 1989, as a prohibited statute of limitations,” the NSHR said yesterday.It said Iivula-Ithana appeared to be oblivious of, and was silent about, the right of all those aggrieved by the issue of “missing persons” on both sides to effective remedy.”Similarly, Ms Iivula-Ithana is stone silent on the right of NSHR’s employees to approach an independent, impartial, competent and lawful court or tribunal to obtain effective remedy,” the statement said.According to the NSHR, Iivula-Ithana also failed to affirm the right of the relatives to know the fate or whereabouts of their missing loved ones, although that right was enshrined in the Constitution.It dismissed the impression created that the organisation was only concerned with the issue of “Swapo detainees”.”Nothing could be farther from the truth,” it said.The rights organisation reiterated its offer to withdraw its ICC submission in exchange for a truth and reconciliation commission.”Arrogance and intransigence would not solve the problem.It must, nevertheless, be made absolutely clear that, in the absence of the establishment of a home grown TRC process, NSHR’s submission stands.The matter will be left up to the ICC to decide.”It also rejected the policy of national reconciliation, saying it was being used to stifle and undermine democracy, respect for the rule of law and justice for all in the country.”Tate Nujoma’s policy is being used to shield himself from legitimate and democratic criticism.It is also being used to shield him from any legal proceedings.It is further being used by certain unscrupulous elements to instigate public violence, civil strife and or civil war in the country,” the NSHR claimed.”Such a policy is also being used …as a smokescreen to threaten those citizens who dare criticising Nujoma with irreversible expulsion from the country or even the issuance of one-way tickets to a destination from where there is no return.Such a policy is a self-serving cocoon of immunity and impunity for Nujoma,” it alleged further.The NSHR said it regarded the rejection of a TRC as refusal on the part of Nujoma and others to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty of missing persons or to give information on the facts or whereabouts of the disappeared persons.It regarded this as deliberate, intentional and continuing conduct aimed at removing the thousands of missing people from the protection of the law for a long period of time or even permanently.The NSHR said the Amnesty Proclamation was to avoid criminal prosecution after Independence against anyone in respect of any criminal offences perpetrated by members of the warring parties before Independence.However, the NSHR argued that immunity from prosecution as envisaged in South African Administrator Louis Pienaar’s Amnesty Proclamation (AG 13 of 1989) was a product of a representative of the former apartheid regime, who was not elected by Namibians.”Who elected AG Louis Pienaar? Hence, the impression being created by Attorney General and Justice Minister Iivula-Ithana through her ministerial statement yesterday is for that very reason dismissed as misleading,” the NSHR said in a statement. The rights body said the amnesty only covered crimes committed prior to June 7 1989 and not thereafter.”Those crimes of enforced disappearance perpetrated in the Ohangwena, Kavango and Caprivi Regions between 1994 and 2003 are therefore not covered by the said proclamation.Therefore for all legal purposes, AG 13 of 1989 constitutes an impermissible national legislation, which has a retrospective effect.Therein are the illegitimacy and assailability of AG Pienaar’s AG 13 of 1989, as a prohibited statute of limitations,” the NSHR said yesterday.It said Iivula-Ithana appeared to be oblivious of, and was silent about, the right of all those aggrieved by the issue of “missing persons” on both sides to effective remedy.”Similarly, Ms Iivula-Ithana is stone silent on the right of NSHR’s employees to approach an independent, impartial, competent and lawful court or tribunal to obtain effective remedy,” the statement said.According to the NSHR, Iivula-Ithana also failed to affirm the right of the relatives to know the fate or whereabouts of their missing loved ones, although that right was enshrined in the Constitution.It dismissed the impression created that the organisation was only concerned with the issue of “Swapo detainees”.”Nothing could be farther from the truth,” it said.The rights organisation reiterated its offer to withdraw its ICC submission in exchange for a truth and reconciliation commission.”Arrogance and intransigence would not solve the problem.It must, nevertheless, be made absolutely clear that, in the absence of the establishment of a home grown TRC process, NSHR’s submission stands.The matter will be left up to the ICC to decide.”It also rejected the policy of national reconciliation, saying it was being used to stifle and undermine democracy, respect for the rule of law and justice for all in the country.”Tate Nujoma’s policy is being used to shield himself from legitimate and democratic criticism.It is also being used to shield him from any legal proceedings.It is further being used by certain unscrupulous elements to instigate public violence, civil strife and or civil war in the country,” the NSHR claimed.”Such a policy is also being used …as a smokescreen to threaten those citizens who dare criticising Nujoma with irreversible expulsion from the country or even the issuance of one-way tickets to a destination from where there is no return.Such a policy is a self-serving cocoon of immunity and impunity for Nujoma,” it alleged further.The NSHR said it regarded the rejection of a TRC as refusal on the part of Nujoma and others to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty of missing persons or to give information on the facts or whereabouts of the disappeared persons.It regarded this as deliberate, intentional and continuing conduct aimed at removing the thousands of missing people from the protection of the law for a long period of time or even permanently.