Dr Kennedy Mabuku
Regardless of the period we explore the history of humanity and its existence, we shall agree that security shapes the reality of any given society. Therefore, in my view, security discussions should never be out of sight in public discourse.
On 16 May 2023, the highest court in Namibia recognised same-sex marriages contracted abroad. The court decision brought opposing views from the public.
This presents a breakthrough in scrutinising how the latter development will directly affect
the security within police cells and rehabilitation facilities. In writing this piece, I refrain from recent submissions of whether or not the Namibian society should accept the ruling.
Instead, my discussion is rather premised on the security implications of same-sex couples’ intimacy within police holding cells and correctional facilities.
To this end, I critically examine the potential challenges, concerns, and security considerations surrounding the presence of same-sex couples in these institutional settings.
The contemporary arrangement at these institutions is based on two recognised genders: males and females. Against that, the inclusion of the categorisation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTQ) will mean the infrastructure made to accommodate the trial awaiting inmates and sentenced offenders will need to be readjusted to satisfy the new demands.
From a security point of view, it becomes inviting to ponder the security aspects of the current trending issue in Namibia. While the police ensure the attendance of the accused in court during trial, the correctional officers rehabilitate the offenders when sentenced.
In the first place, views have demonstrated that Namibian society, to a larger extent, does not favour same-sex couples, meaning that those engaging in such activities may be prone to increased discrimination and victimisation.
The preceding furnishes strong empirical confirmation that, in settings where homophobia or transphobia persists, recognising same-sex couples within police holding cells and correctional facilities may subject individuals to increased discrimination and prejudice.
Imaginably, some staff members or fellow inmates may have biased views, which can result in harassment, verbal abuse, or even physical violence. This hostile environment can negatively impact the safety and well-being of the individuals involved, further posing human security threats.
On the other hand, in some cases, same-sex couples may face challenges in accessing support systems within police holding cells and correctional facilities. These harbouring places could lack established protocols to accommodate the specific needs of individuals.
Moreover, the lack of support can negatively affect their mental health and emotional well-being, which may impede part of the effective restoration process, one of the ultimate objectives that correctional facilities seek to attain.
In expansion, in facilities where same-sex couples are a minority, they may face social isolation and exclusion. This can donate to feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety-subsequently, leading to suicide. Without a supportive social network, individuals may toil to cope with the challenges of being in custody, which can further compromise their overall well-being.
To this point, I retaliated my belief when I argued two years ago, which in my view, still holds that relevance to same-sex couples’ intimacy. In these harbouring places, by aspiring to fulfil conjugal rights, married or intimate couples may occasionally demand regular interactions, even if they are put in separate cells.
All these will bring about increased tensions within the facilities, which could compromise the security control mechanisms put in place. Undeniably, these provide important insights into the possible adverse consequences in terms of the security and safety of both prisoners and the public at large.
In anticipation, the cases of gender-based violence in correctional facilities could increase. Similarly, in fights that will be necessitated by wanting to have a partner to share intimacy could be the order of the day. Meanwhile, prison sexual violence could be questioned to manage, especially with side effects such as depression, social anxiety, anger, and fear attributed to sexual violence in the correctional facility.
In as much as sodomy will remain a crime in Namibia, especially considering one essential element (consent) that will still be needed to prove the crime, I contend that indirectly, we will permit such engagement in police custody and rehabilitation centres.
In shared spaces, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved, there can be intrinsic security risks associated with cohabitation. These risks may include conflicts and violence from craving each other’s companionship.
As implied before, in the existing setting, in both the police and correctional facilities, cells are separately demarcated for males and females, which serves the purpose of separating gender and avoiding facilitating sexual intimacy in the institutions.
On recognising the same-sex couples in these vital institutions that help mitigate criminal behaviour, the message is sent that those incarcerated may sexually engage with each other, which will be viewed as an accepted custom, it appears.
This glance compels me to ask these further questions: Upon detaining them, which criteria will be considered about the cells they should be kept in? Will these be the cells where other offenders are incarcerated or will separate special cells be made available?
If another man or woman can be viewed as a sexual partner, what will become of security in these harbouring institutions? These, on their own, maybe exacerbate human and physical security, as already contended.
It can be presumably concluded that the currently recognised gender will still be the consideration to separate women and male inmates in terms of detention. This implies that the possibility of cohabiting same-sex couples is very high when they are detained or fall for each other while incarcerated.
The physical infrastructure of police holding cells and correctional facilities may not always be designed to accommodate the specific needs of same-sex couples. Meaning cohabitating will become a linked tradition in police holding cells and correctional facilities.
Thus, cohabitation in confined spaces can potentially strain relationships between same-sex couples, other inmates and the officers, especially in high-stress environments such as police holding cells or correctional facilities.
In particular, with the reality of limited privacy and the challenges associated with sharing personal space, this furnishes additional evidence concerning tension and conflict that might emerge within harbouring institutions. To mitigate these anticipated challenges of same-sex couples’ intimacy, I recommend that staff members receive comprehensive training on diversity, inclusivity, and the specific needs of LGBTQ individuals and officers to promote a safe and respectful environment.
Secondly, the realisation of safe habitation in these harbouring institutions will require robust security measures, proactive monitoring, and appropriate disciplinary actions to ensure the safety of all inmates.
Thirdly, the institutions should have protocols in place to manage these situations effectively, ensuring the safety of all individuals involved.
Lastly, the most important of them is benchmarking best practices through research from other countries with similar situations to take the lead in new ventures and enterprises that effectively create a platform to handle security issues.
On the other hand, highlighting the various security implications and challenges of accommodating same-sex marriage and intimate couples provides a foundation for informed decision-making.
Notably, it further gives an opportunity for policy development and the promotion of inclusivity within these institutions.
Eventually, the goal is to ensure all individuals’ safety, dignity and well-being, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity-while, maintaining the necessary security measures within these institutional settings.
Finally, I look forwards to uninterrupted sight to the security itinerary to be undertaken.
*Dr Kennedy Mabuku writes in his capacity; his opinions do not reflect those of the police or correctional institutions. He holds a doctorate in policing practices.