The recent tale that almost culminated in a consignment of second-hand clothing and toys being returned to Luxembourg, a small but wealthy French- and German-speaking European country, cannot go without eliciting comment.
Had we not run the story, there is quite a high probability that Customs and Excise officials would surely have returned the clothing to the donors in that far-flung European country from where good Samaritans donated the clothing in the first place.
Before a local bank chipped in with funds to pay for import duty on the donated clothing, Customs and Excise justified its plans to auction or return the goods on the grounds that Namibia is a SACU member from which it derives a huge chunk of its income.
There is nothing wrong with this explanation, but our primary concern is that we feel lawmakers should seriously consider revisiting and eventually revising the law regulating the imposition of import duty, particularly on second-hand clothing meant for the needy.
It is unfortunate that orphans and other disadvantaged groups may fall victim – if they have not already – to this particular duty because previously certain uncouth characters in the business sector with an excessive desire to make a profit, imported all manner of goods under the pretence tat the merchandise was ‘second-hand’ so that they could avoid paying duty.
And the Ministry of Finance, after detecting this fraud, promptly flexed its muscles and moved in with an iron fist to close this possibility by imposing duty on all goods.
And, like the African adage that says when two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers, it is now orphans such as the ones in Rundu who have to face the consequences and possibly be deprived of any goods that may come from European donors.
This state of affairs should not be allowed to prevail because it could in future precipitate donor fatigue that would in turn deny needy children basic goods much needed in the winter to keep the cold and other negative weather elements at bay.
It is ironic that, on the one hand, the people who have committed their lives to running these charities, go out of their way to launch impassioned appeals for help, and good Samaritans, on the other, extend a helping hand only to be blocked by this law.
If other laws deemed archaic could be revised so that they conform to accepted norms and society’s needs, why not do the same with this law, particularly when it comes to orphans and others who are truly in need of donated clothing, the people whose lives are a daily struggle and who are where they are because of circumstances beyond their control?
We are making this suggestion in good faith and are taking into consideration that certain communities are prone to all sorts of disasters and could soon find themselves in a similar predicament. It is true that laws are there to be obeyed, come hell or high water, but we also believe the same laws should not prevent bona fide needy people from getting assistance, whether such aid originates from domestic or from external sources.
We humbly appeal to the powers that be to speedily look into this issue.
We would also like to use this opportunity to extend our great appreciation to Bank Windhoek for availing funds to clear the goods in the Kavango case, and to Desert Logistics for its part in transporting the clothing to the orphans free of charge.