In some countries, days like these are always celebrated with passion and patriotism as they remind the citizens of the days on which their countries were born and became nations. 

In the similar vein, the Constitution should always be respected as it is the supreme law of the land. 

The absence of any celebration of this day in Namibia is not surprising, as the document has not been taken seriously in some quarters. 

Some political leaders when it pleased them referred to it as ‘a mere piece of paper’ while others casually belittled and ridiculed the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, and joked that, ‘people don’t eat human rights’. 

It is not surprising Out of touch with some constitutional provisions

therefore that the current head of state recently attacked the media for being critical against his government, and labelled the journalists as unpatriotic. But contrary to the diatribe of the head of state against the media, it should be mentioned that he was the chairman of the Constituent Assembly, which hatched one of the best constitutions in the world in 1990. Article 21 (1) states that, “all persons shall have the right to: (a) freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.”

But many Namibian journalists and media houses exercise self-censorship. 

What they point out are just realities and don’t go beyond their mandate despite the high level of constitutional violations in Namibia by some political leaders. 

Although the government of the day has made some strides in providing some constitutional requirements, a lot remains to be done. One of the constitutional provision which stands ajar is Article 20 (2) which states that, “Primary education shall be compulsory and the State shall provide reasonable facilities to render effective this right for every resident within Namibia, by establishing and maintaining State schools at which primary education will be provided free of charge.” 

Although the education sector is the largest beneficiary from the national budget, the dream to realise the constitutional provision of compulsory and free education remains elusive. 

There are learners who are still being taught under trees and tents and the worst scenario is that there are children who have no access to primary education. 

Even in Windhoek, at some point, learners have been taught in tents, especially in the environs of Katutura and Khomasdal. Yet the constitutional provision is that the State should provide reasonable facilities to render these services. 

Failure to render such services means that the State has been violating these obligations for more than 32 years of nationhood. 

Because of constitutional ignorance and leniency, Namibians have not been able to take the State to court for violating these statutory provisions. 

By the way, the State might have made limited efforts to make the constitution available in the vernaculars of Namibia. In cases where it is available, very little is done to sensitise the masses about the importance of knowing the constitution which is their supreme law of the land. Many African countries deliberately fail to teach some of the rights to their citizens in order for the State to perpetually exploit and keep them passive. 

Because of this ignorance on the part of the citizens, no one can call upon the State and its minister of education for the latter to step down for failing to render educational services effectively as stipulated by the Constitution. 

Whatever happens in this country even to an extent of violating the constitutional provisions, very little is done to bring the responsible people to account. It is perhaps one reason why Namibia has no constitutional court to prevent the citizens from dragging some politicians to face justice. Needless to say, the State has been having challenges in some quarters in upholding Article 8 (1) which states that, ‘the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable and especially (2) (b) which maintains that, no persons shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.’ 

This constitutional provision does not explicitly state under which conditions should the suspects be tortured and punished. 

One may be tempted to think that the treatment under which some alleged secessionists went through was unconstitutional and cruel. Although some of them were compensated for the abuse and torture, the culprits are still being psychologically harassed despite the fact that the suspects were cleared of any wrongdoing by the competent court of law. According to Mazrui (1986), it was a crime during the last days of president Kenyatta to think that he would pass away. This scenario of assumption of wrongdoing by an innocent person is still applicable to the people who were not involved in the secession attempt, and yet targeting them by indirectly denying them promotions and jobs. In fact, even those who were cleared of any wrongdoing by the competent court of law have not been compensated for their wrongful arrest and detention for more than two decades, while the maximum period Namibian prisoners served at Robben Island was 16 years. 

No one condones criminality, but the constitutional provisions should be upheld all the times to make Namibia a democratic and secure country to enjoy living in. If this is not done, then there will be very little difference between an independent Namibia and the colonised one.