Lucas Tshuuya
It is reported that whenever members of the public approach police officers to state their facts concerning them, by swearing upon such facts before police officers because the law requires that such swearing/oath should be administered by a commissioner of oaths, sadly, police officers misinterpret this.
This is so because there is a fallacy by police officers that whenever a person wants to make a sworn declaration, he/she should provide proof accompanying the sworn declaration.
An example is if a person wants to make a sworn declaration about a person who died, the police expect such person to produce a death certificate. If a person wants to make a sworn declaration about a child, he/she is expected to produce a full-birth certificate. If a spouse wants to make a sworn declaration stating that A or B is his/her spouse, police expect that person to produce a marriage certificate as proof of what he/she is stating in a sworn declaration.
Around the world, there is no law that requires a deponent to produce proof of what he/she is declaring under oath, unless he/she wishes to refer to a specific document in that sworn declaration as Annexure.
The law only requires that a deponent should be in a sober mind, like he/she should know and understand the content of the sworn declaration and have no objection to that effect.
Once a deponent deposed to a sworn declaration, the Commissioner of Oaths shall certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he/she knows and understands the content of the sworn declaration, and has no objection to that prescribed oath. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Oaths shall state the manner, place and date of commissioning the sworn declaration, print his/her full name, address and state his/her designation and the area for which he/she holds such an appointment or office in case of ex‐officio.
It appears that police commanders and/or instructors at the Police College misinformed and ill- trained police cadets on how a sworn declaration should be made by deponents.
Such police practice is tantamount to abuse of oaths and office. Therefore, it is wrong.
These anomalies are mostly observed in rural areas, where many young and old people are oblivious about their human rights.
Such malpractices often manifest when police officers refuse members of the public who come to police stations to make sworn declarations about them a service, but in turn they are threatened with arrest by police. If they persist to make sworn declarations without adducing further evidence as proof of what they are declaring, they are chased away.
This police practice is wrong in law and undermines the rule of law in Namibia because it is not in line with any legislation nor common law practices. Therefore, the entire Namibian police should reform such practice.
When police officers demand every deponent who wants to make a sworn declaration to produce proof/evidence of what is to be declared, it is not only unlawful but wrongful, because only the judiciary arm of the government is vested with powers to punish a person who made a false sworn declaration while knowing it to be false with the charge of perjury.
* Lucas Tshuuya is a Bachelor of Laws and Police science graduate from UNISA. He is currently a candidate legal practitioner through the University of Namibia.