The court case that has been filed by four leaders of the Swapo Party Youth League (SPYL), who have been expelled from the mother body, would provide an acid test as to what the rule of law, including the law of natural justice, means to Swapo and Namibia in general.
It cannot but test whether the expulsions are in line with the code of conduct of the Swapo Party and ultimately the Namibian Constitution. When the expulsion was decreed, because of the seeming arbitrariness of the decision to expel them without due process, one could not but question what the rules of natural justice are and what they mean and whether they apply to Swapo as a legal entity.
Swapo Party – and of all people its leaders – are supposed to set the standard and lead the way in terms of adherence to the rule of law. If they do not subscribe and subject themselves to the rule of law, and by extension law of natural justice, why not and who should?
I’ve been wondering what may isolate and insulate the party from such, and especially its higher echelons from the normal remit of the laws of natural justice.
This issue should have stirred the inquisitiveness of many a legal mind, but that has been ominously wanting.
Is it the Swapo Constitution itself, or other of its other provisions, that seem to exonerate the party from the due process of the laws of natural justice when dealing with one or more of its members?
The other matter that must be of equal concern to all and sundry – whether Swapo Party members or not – is how a structure, as high up as possible, could really have so much power as to arbitrarily expel members of another structure without affording such a structure the opportunity to deal with its own members.
Any higher structure can only be the recourse of last resort. In fact, is it not this higher structure that should have been the instance of last recourse for the expelled members?
The questions regarding this matter are many but they point to one thing, whether there has been adherence to the rule of law, which also entails the rules of natural justice, like the right of reply – any party not being a judge in its own cause.
That is why one looks forward to the court casting light on this, and especially on the code of conduct of the party, as it relates to discipline within the organisation and its various structures, but also as to the extent that the disciplinary code is subject to and subordinate to the rule of law and the laws of natural justice.
While men and women of supposed wisdom within the party should have provided understanding and leadership in this regard, they have proven grossly wanting in this regard, either due to some intellectual inhibition, or wilfully so for own parochial interest.
Because if the old wise men and women within the Swapo Party, and outside in various other fields of endeavour, legal and otherwise, properly applied themselves and allowed due process to be followed, and the correct procedures as well, the matter should have been addressed properly.
Yet, it is disturbing to note that among those who have been entrusted with upholding the highest standards – among the finer points of the rule of law, like the rules of natural justice – some seem to think that these are not applicable to them, nor to the Mighty Swapo Party, and/or can only be applied selectively as their egoistic survivalist whims dictate.
This is certainly a recipe for disaster if those who are supposed to be the upholders of fundamental principles in our society, social, moral, legal and otherwise, are the very ones who seem to be violating and/or ignoring these. This is why one cannot but look forward to the court’s pronouncements on this matter.
This is necessary in order to send a strong message to those unaware of what the rule of law is about, as well as those who would wish to view and understand the rule of law in terms of their own parochial interest and undemocratic tendencies.
Whatever the eventual verdict, there cannot be any question the overall winner should be the broader national interest. As much as the general good of all has been and is paramount in this dispensation, private and individual rights are equally of cardinal importance.