What happened in the fishing industry has shocked all of us. It exposed the innate human flaw in all of us and augments the dysfunction within some of our institutions and endemic and structural vulnerabilities of their processes. My writings, and those of Dr Job Amupanda remain very clear on this, a point we have continued to reinforce when everybody else was going about their usual duty. Notwithstanding this, the accused are citizens who deserve the protection of our constitution, which no one should make us abandon for temporary political expediency.
Enshrined in Article 12 of our Constitution is the principle that all citizens shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty which process shall be, after a fair and public hearing by an independent, impartial and competent Court or Tribunal established by law. Ironically, the constitution does not make provision for a trial by media or the public. Case law further cautions us about the danger of over-emphasising public interest to the detriment of the issue at hand.
We are reliably informed that the matter is ready to go to an independent branch of the government tasked with the power to judiciously determine culpability, this must be underscored and held in its due regard. The judiciary, just like in the days of apartheid, is the last bastion for the poor and vulnerable, and no aspersion ought to be cast over it. Eroding it sets a bad precedence for other branches of government and diminishes its honour.
The circulation on social media of an affidavit that has not been disclosed to the accused nor read into record (court), begs several questions on integrity and intention. On the one hand, it may be that those who leaked this did so intentionally upon realising that this application by De Klerk would not stand any test in court. Thus, it is thrown into the court of public opinion to feed presumptions and prejudices with a view to influence the impending judicial proceedings. Now that the affidavit is out, commenting on it further ought not to be problematic. However, I am quick to caution that we should not dissect an affidavit as if it is a judgement and the only evidence to be presented before the court of law.
In 2019, The Namibian newspaper carried an article under the heading “Pay the Boss”. In that article, journalist Tileni Mongudhi and Mathias Haufiku ( whom I both respect and knows well) when taking from a forensic report compiled by Ernst and Young (EY) auditors for the Law Society of Namibia, stated that the word “boss” appears to refer to former justice minister Sacky Shanghala.( ‘Pay the boss’, 2020-06-25)
Ironically, less than a year later, the same newspaper comes back with another article dubbed “Boss of the Bosses”. This Covid-19 is a problem.
First and foremost, Mr De Klerk, never used such a word nor did he ranked the bosses or made use of the word “Boss of Bosses” but “the Boss”.
It will be a travesty of justice if we are forced to believe that the President of the Republic was behind the whole scheme. (Ad paragraph 10.7) An admitted legal practitioner who studied at the best university in Africa ( Matie vir altyd) for one or the other reason, failed to attach any documentary evidence to support his claim of the President being the Boss and or having appointed Mr Hatuikulipi (James) as economic advisor or him as a part of his (the president) re-election team. This becomes motive ridden, (contained in paragraph 3) if behad is to the fact that he attached proof of most of the other allegations or create circumstantial strength. He does not even tell us that he bumped into the president at a public rally or had any personal encounter with the presumed boss for such impression to be created. The way he was duped into the scheme is the same way he was misled about the authority and blessings (Namedropping, the practice of casually mentioning the names of famous people one knows or claims to know in order to impress others).
The above renders this whole placing of the name of the President of the Republic on the accident scene an after-the-fact scenario and hearsay especially if we incorporate the content of paragraphs 66.14 and 15.
It will not be far-fetched to advocate for the rejection of the forced sale of the coloured candyfloss on the basis that the usual buyers (children) are in classrooms. The taste of the candyfloss only last until it is on the tongue.
It can confidently be concluded that the person who, together with his wife declared his assets, Dr Hage Geingob, was a victim of name-dropping.
The law is concerned with evidence and ‘the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that is, it is utterly absurd’ (Bertrand Russell).