SEALS of Nam (SoN), one the critics of Namibia’s annual seal cull, has described Namibian Ombudsman John Walters’s report on the complaints by seal-rights activists about seal culling as ‘badly researched, incomplete and inconclusive’.
In fact, SoN’s Pat Dickens alleges that ‘several submitted documents were not even considered’ – documents containing ‘critical information’ regarding the status quo of the Cape fur seal population along Namibia’s coast, which were supposed to be supplied by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources.’Without population data, which Advocate Walters himself has repeatedly said is fundamental to his findings, his report is absolutely meaningless,’ Dickens stated in a response issued this week.’This is a blatant show of contempt by the ministry to choose to hide critical information and thus, at a political level, interfering with the independence and integrity of the country’s ombudsman,’ Dickens lashed out.The Namibian tried to get comment from Walters, but he is out of the country. Instead, the director of the Office of the Ombudsman, Eileen Rakow, said it was true that the ministry had not submitted the population data, but not because it wanted to hide something.’Mr Dickens assumes that this information is available and being withheld deliberately, but this is not the case. The reason why they could not submit the data is because the final figures are not available yet, and before it can be published, all the marine scientists of the three members of the Benguela Current Commission (BCC), namely Namibia, South Africa and Angola, first have to evaluate and approve the figures,’ she said.Although she was not sure when this will happen, she said Walters has called on the ministry to publish the information once it is available. She said the data would also be made available at the BCC offices in SA and Angola.Dickens criticised Walters’s report as ‘flimsy, filled with contradictions and errors, trying to worm its way into insanity,’ in that it mainly deals with other seal species, giving little space to issues pertaining to the Cape fur seals.He referred to an attempt by Walters not to classify a seal as an animal under the Animal Protection Act, suggesting that this was a manipulation of the Act. According to Rakow, Dickens may not understand the Act.’The definition of an animal, in context of this Act, is clear. An animal, according to this Act, is a domesticated animal, or a wild animal in captivity, or an animal under the control of humans. The Cape fur seal does not fall within these categories in context of the Act, and that’s how it should be understood,’ she said.Seals of Nam is calling for a full review, and until such time, the organisation is demanding that a moratorium be placed on seal culling. The seal cull is set to start on July 15, and there are no signs that it will be stopped. Animal rights organisations from all over the world are calling for a halt, and The Namibian has received several e-mails in which calls are being made to the international community to boycott the country’s economy if the ‘cull’ continues.Last Monday, the Ombudsman released a 28-page report on the seal cull and an investigation of the complaints.Walters endorsed the annual cull, although he also proposed some changes to the regulations governing culling in Namibia. The report is a response to years of complaints by animal-rights activists about the brutality of the cull that is alleged to threaten the Cape fur seal species for the sake of saving the fishing industry.In the meantime, attempts by The Namibian to meet with the right holder for the Cape Cross concession was immediately snuffed with the message that the ministry of fisheries has demanded from all right holders not to speak to the media on matters pertaining to the harvest.The Minister, Bernhard Esau nor the Permanent Secretary, Ulitala Hiveluah, are in the country to confirm whether this is true.
