Iuze Mukube
Government wants to be given the choice to ensure the gradual removal of the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VFC) as opposed to Job Amupanda’s plea for its immediate removal.
Herman Steyn, the government’s attorney, said the State is committed to implementing measures that will improve the lives of those north of the red line through its gradual removal.
He asserted that this would be difficult to do if the court were to find in favour of Amupanda.
As such, he pleaded to the court to leave the decision up to the government.
This was after Steyn presented witness statements of agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein and Albertina Shilongo, the chief veterinary officer and director of veterinary services in the agriculture ministry.
The statements were presented to question Amupanda on the different effects that could potentially result in an adverse outcome of his claim for the immediate removal of the fence.
The first question highlighted Shilongo’s statement, which argues that it is impossible to effectively prevent the spread of infectious diseases when the fence is removed.
Amupanda responded that he does not agree with this notion of impossibility, as the country has had 30 years to improve.
“A school was built to address this type of issue. We have one now, the University of Namibia’s Veterinary School of Science. Those young people studying at the school should come up with innovative ideas. That approach of it being impossible is a poor way of doing things,” he argued.
Shilongo stated that the ministry is putting in place measures to stop the spread of disease in the north.
Amupanda responded that if they were that effective, it would defeat the purpose of a red line.
Another concern was the adverse effect the removal would have on the European market.
This includes the accepted standards that international bodies have required for the country to be included in the World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) for cooperation.
Amupanda said the standards are different from instruments (VCF) because the WOAH and WHO did not instruct for discrimination.
Steyn argued that the government’s approach to the VCF, as accorded by Schlettwein’s statement, is to improve people’s livelihoods in Namibia.
Amupanda argued that the ministry’s statement implies that Namibia is divided into two economies.
He pointed out that people north of the red line are being treated as second-class citizens in their own country.
“They are presented and projected as second class because, somehow, they should wait to enjoy these rights, when they should be enjoying them as the rest of the citizens,” he stated.
The statements included the government’s objectives to ensure that the best course of action is taken in the gradual removal of the fence.
This is while ensuring that people in northern Namibia are taken care of.
Judge Shafimana Ueitele postponed the matter to Friday after a request on the absolution on first instance by the respondents to hear their argument on why Amupanda’s case should be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.