On the occasion of the visit to Namibia of South African Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela, her Namibian equivalent, if our Ombusdman can in any sense be seen as such, Advocate John Walters, was quoted in the local media as saying his “job is not to embarrass or expose or make the government look bad but rather to tidy up government’s processes”.
Somehow his South African counterpart seems to agree with this positioning, categorically when saying, “We don’t have any hostile relationship with government. We just help them.” Wherever these justifications by both may have come from and are based on, one’s immediate reaction is yes, and no.
Yes, because surely it cannot be the business of both offices to, in the words of Advocate Walters, “embarrass”, “expose” and “make look bad”. Yes, because needless to say, these are and cannot be the business and functions of the Ombudsman in terms of the Namibian Constitution of which he/she is appointed, and the office is established.
Article 91 of the Constitution defines the functions of the Ombudsman as, among others, “the duty to investigate complaints concerning alleged or apparent instances of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, abuse of power, unfair, harsh, insensitive or discourteous treatment of an inhabitant of Namibia by an official in the employ of any organ of Government whether (whether central or local), manifest injustice, or corruption or conduct of by such official which would properly be regarded as unlawful, oppressive or unfair in a democratic society.”
Yes, because the government in my strict interpretation of the Constitution as far as it relates to the functions of the Ombudsman, does not seem to refer to the President and the Ministers, who properly constitute the executive branch of the State, but in this instance to the administration of the government, which are the officials “of any organ whether central of local”. While this may be the case, still one may agree that the intent is not to embarrass but to fulfil a constitutional function, and a duty.
Thus, in the due course of investigations one cannot rule out any collateral damage to the officials involved, and ultimately the government ala Walters and Madonsela. It is important to point out and emphasise this because, somehow, one cannot but read in the Ombusdsman’s statement a veiled hesitation to carry out his duties for fear of “embarrassing the government”. It must also be pointed out that the Ombudsman’s office cannot thrive and prosper, and duly carry out its mandate, without the requisite public confidence. Partly, this can come from revealing the results of its investigations, and the solutions suggested or recommended in any matter investigated and duly found to be have substance.
Most crucial, the Ombudsman, who is vested with powers by the Constitution, making this office an independent institution, cannot afford to be seen and seem as just another white elephant, a toothless one for that matter. As much as implicitly by his recent media statement, the Ombudsman does not and would not want to have any teeth. But the Ombudsman and staff, and the broader Namibian public, must realise that the Namibian Constitution vests this office with an important duty in terms of helping oil the administrative machinery of the Namibian government.
The Ombudsman can help very much in this regard if only it can start to cast off its veiled caution. It is gratifying to note that as by its 2013 annual report, the office managed to resolve 79 percent of the complaints. This is compared to 53 percent in 2012 and 58 percent in 2011. But can the public that the Ombudsman is supposed to serve and help, actually be inspired by this? Only if the Ombudsman is prepared to help and serve it without looking over his shoulders to Big Brother let alone thinking that Big Brother or Sister for that matter, is watching!