Windhoek
The legal team of the Namibia National Students Organisation (NANSO), led by prominent attorney Sisa Namandje, has accused the National Youth Council (NYC) of using “nasty tactics to sideline the student movement from taking part in NYC affairs.”
Namandje did not mince words in the High Court on Friday and also took aim at the NYC’s lawyer, Steve Rukoro, saying: “Your honour, this is the worst opposition I ever came across in my short, but busy career.”
Nanso had launched an urgent application in the High Court last month in an attempt to get the court to nullify the Representive Council’s decision to suspend the student body for four months due to alleged “deep divisions” within the student movement.
This followed after delegates at an extraordinary Representative Council meeting held in Nkurenkuru in Kavango West in June unanimously resolved to suspend NANSO for four months.
Namandje said the matter should be treated as urgent, because it is not clear whether the General Assembly would be postponed or not. “If there is a postponement, the respondent [NYC] cannot be trusted to decide when the General Assembly should take place,” he said.
Nanso should be given a chance to participate in the preparatory procedures leading to the General Assembly and this includes the restructuring process of the regional youth forums, Namandje said.
Rukoro argued the urgent application brought by Nanso to have the suspension lifted holds no water, as the restructuring process of the regional youth forums had been called off and there are plans to postpone the NYC’s general assembly, which was provisionally scheduled for September.
Nanso is the largest student movement in the country and the biggest NYC-affiliate, representing tens of thousands of students across the country.
Rukoro said the youth council needs to first resolve some structural issues before it can set a date for the assembly, where a new leadership would be elected.
Judge Shafimana Ueitele was particularly concerned that there are plans to shift the general assembly date, despite it being statutory, and questioned why Nanso was suspended without an opportunity to defend itself, and how the decision to suspend came about if it was not on the agenda.
“Should this [general assembly] not be a statutory requirement, regardless of the affairs in the organisation?” Ueitele asked. Rukoro answered that “Once the shortcomings have been addressed, as well as the restructuring process, only then can we talk of a date.”
Rukoro intimated that the general assembly might take place some time between November and December: “The suspension was not for the fun of it. It was done to give the respondent a chance to carry out an investigation to determine where the fault lies.”
Although Rukoro denied that suspending Nanso was a punitive measure, Ueitele was convinced the suspension was a form of punishment. “You cannot act fairly if you do not give both parties a fair chance. How fair is it when you discuss items that are not on the agenda?” the judge asked.
Ueitele further said the Representative Council was supposed to include on the agenda that the meeting would discuss Nanso’s suspension in order for Nanso to prepare and defend itself.
“You cannot use convenience to exclude legality. The applicant was supposed to have been afforded an opportunity to explain why they should not be suspended,” said Ueitele.
Judgment in the dispute before the High Court is due on August 7.