Norman Tjombe

Namibia’s judiciary has remarkably demonstrated its independence over the past 32 years since independence. 

The appointments of judges to the bench have been done on merit. As a demonstration of merit, many of the judges who previously only acted (not permanently appointed), had adjudicated on serious matters and on occasion gave orders against powerful interests, yet they were again appointed to the bench – either on acting basis or permanently. Some have been promoted to the Supreme Court. Lately, we have seen the appointment of more female judges to the High Court bench, although the Supreme Court is shamefully lacking behind with no single female judge appointed on a permanent basis. 

The quality of judgements has consistently improved. Lawyers no longer only have to rely on South African jurisprudence to advance their arguments, as Namibia’s body of jurisprudence has been developed to the extent that we now even have textbooks written on some subjects. The speed of delivering judgements, and thus finalising cases, has markedly improved. The High Court’s migration from old hardcopy files to an electronic system has greatly contributed to the speedy finalisation of cases. 

In the past, we have seen the attacks on the judiciary when specific judges were targeted with unfair criticism. For example, judge John Manyarara was threatened with dismissal because of an order he gave for the release of Jose Domingos Sikunda from unlawful detention. Soon after that, a judge, who was of foreign nationality, was also threatened with the withdrawal of his work permit after he ruled against the government. Whilst it is expected that, in a constitutional democracy, the performance of certain functions will out of necessity cause tensions between people or between various state institutions, these attacks were uncalled for, but the judges stood firm against these attacks, and the courts performed their normal functions for many years thereafter. The manner in which the former Chief Justice handled the matter showed that the judiciary was indeed independent of negative or undue influences.     

The independence of the judiciary was further demonstrated by the largest and longest trial ever – the Caprivi Treason Trial. Not only was the logistical management of the trial itself a massive operation, but the trial was politically-charged. 

The court managed the process admirably. The acquittal of more than half of the accused, despite powerful contrary opinions by a number of ruling party politicians, is further testimony that the court only followed the evidence. That the convictions of the accused were not overturned by the Supreme Court shows that the adjudication in the High Court of a trial happening over more than a decade, was solid.      

With the establishment of the Office of the Judiciary, the judiciary secured its independence even more, as a matter such as its budget is no longer a matter for the Minister of Justice, who is a member of the executive.  

Kadhila Amoomo

Unlike South Africa, where we have seen a nasty exchange of political engagements between members of the judiciary, executive and other politicians, Namibia has been fortunate. Our judiciary remains independent, and free from political interference. We do, however, need to eradicate the budgetary constraints that make it difficult for the judiciary to achieve its objectives. We also need to improve transparency by having public interviews when it comes to appointments. We have a solid leadership in the form of the Chief Justice and Judge President of the courts. Judgments are no longer delayed. We have a solid appeal system. In my view, there is room for improvement, but our judiciary is definitely one of the best, if not the best in the world.

Jermaine Muchali

The Namibian judiciary system is one of the most independent because it is constitutionally and statutorily regulated and guaranteed.

However, our judicial independence does not exist simply because of the promulgated statutes, it exists purely because of the liberal leadership of the current Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice.

Under their stewardship thus far, they established the Office of the Judiciary, which is an independent organ of State with its own functionaries.

The transparency of the judiciary is evident in the intricate procedural appointments of judges. Potential judges are recommended by their governing bodies like the Law Society of Namibia and the Magistrates Commission to the Judicial Service Commission, whereafter they are recommended to the president of the republic. The President’s Office does not rubber- stamp these recommendations, but a thorough vetting and assessment is conducted before approving the recommendations.

The common argument that judges are appointed on political affiliation is nothing but a myth.

Our judiciary is not only independent and transparent, but it’s inclusive of the different tribes appointed as judges. Inclusivity is our national symbol of independence and transparency.

Since 1990 to this date, our judiciary has excelled exceptionally in terms of independence, transparency, accountability and inclusivity. 

Mbanga Siyomunji

On paper and as per the constitution, there are three wings of government, namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Article 78 talks about the judiciary, and is headed by the Chief Justice. We know that the Chief Justice is appointed by the president, who is the head of the executive, and judges of the Supreme and High Courts are appointed by the president on recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission. 

Now, on paper it seems like there is a very clear separation of powers between the organs of government. But in practice, the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Attorney General are all appointed by the president, who is the head of the executive. 

The three are also top members of the Judicial Service Commission, which recommends the appointment of judges of the Supreme and High Courts, to the President. In this case, how can there be complete separation of powers and transparency? Normally, you will not go against your appointing authority and bite the hand that feeds you. For complete separation of powers, I would have loved to see a Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Attorney General who are selected or recommended by the Law Society, and also members of the Judicial Service Commission elected by members of the Law Society. 

That is when they would be able to function totally independently without any perception of bias. The current scenario, 32 years after independence, is not so encouraging, and more needs to be done.