Iuze Mukube
The legal battle over the removal of the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF), commonly known as the redline, remains in limbo as Windhoek High Court Judge Shafimana Ueitele reserved judgement on the absolution application on Friday.
The ruling is set to be delivered on 27 March.
The government respondents and the Livestock and Livestock Products Board (LLPB, formerly the Meat Board of Namibia) have asked the court for them to be absolved from the matter, citing that the application lacks sufficient legal merit.
One of the significant arguments rested on whether Affirmative Repositioning (AR) movement leader Job Amupanda properly challenged the statutory [legislation] basis of the redline.
Advocate Raymond Heathcote for the LLPB insists the redline is firmly grounded in law, particularly the Animal Health Act, and any challenge should have been directed at amending the legislation itself rather than disputing its implementation.
He argued that Amupanda’s case is built on political rhetoric rather than legal and geographical reasoning.
“Amupanda is ill-informed and misdirected in claiming that the ‘old police zone’ is not the VCF, when it is. He is using political science, not geography, to base his arguments,” stated the lawyer.
He insisted that the real scuffle of the case was one of a political nature, and due to the separation of power issue, Amupanda should fight his battle on the political field rather than the courtroom.
He further pointed out that officials who allegedly confiscated Amupanda’s meat were simply doing their job, and therefore, holding them accountable serves no purpose.
Reinforcing Heathcote’s argument, Advocate Herman Steyn for the State pointed out the existence of the legislation regulating the VCF, which refuted Amupanda’s claim that there is no such legislation in the country’s law.
He further noted that the old regulations were published in either the Government Gazette or the provincial gazette, which is significant because such publications serve as a formal means of announcing laws and regulations.
Essentially, his argument centred on the idea that if an amendment is necessary, it should be made within the framework of the Act under which the VCF is regulated.
During oral submission, Amupanda’s lawyer Mbushandje Paa Ntinda struggled to provide sufficient arguments when questioned by Ueitele whether the case meets the basic requirements for the relief they seek.
This came after Ueitele questioned whether their request to set aside the decision by the Minister of Agriculture was valid, considering that the decision to retain the redline was not made by the minister.
Ntinda argued that the decision to erect the fence was made by the colonialists in 1986, implying that while the law regulating it exists, its application is lacking.
However, the judge corrected this, clarifying that the establishment of the VCF was actually done through an Act passed in 1960, not in 1986.