Iuze Mukube
The curtain has come down on Affirmative Repositioning leader Job Amupanda’s court application for the removal of the veterinary cordon fence (VCF), also known as the redline. Judge Shafimana Ueitele yesterday dismissed the application, stating that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to the court to support his claims.
Amupanda also sought to have the court declare the redline as unconstitutional, which would by extension have validated its removal. In his verdict, judge Ueitele found that the applicant failed to place before the court sufficient evidence holding the possibility of a finding that there is no law sanctioning the erection of the VCF.
He stated that Amupanda did not place a single shred of evidence as to how the search (to which he consented) of his vehicle at the Oshivelo checkpoint on 17 May 2021 violated, disrespected or is inconsistent with his intrinsic worth. Amupanda, however, stated that he will not leave the matter there as he intends to appeal against the decision, which he describes as a minor setback.
“We are going to the Supreme Court, where at least our case will be heard by judges who are not farmers. There was no trial, and there was a lot of irregularities,” he stated afterwards.
At the core of the matter
At the core of the matter was consideration of whether the erection of the fence was not carried out in terms of any law.
Also, under consideration was whether the erection of the VCF is unconstitutional in that it violates Amupanda’s rights in terms of Articles 8 and 10 of the Namibian Constitution, and whether the conduct of the fourth defendant, Hango Nambinga, in confiscating the red meat from Amupanda on 17 May 2021, was unlawful and unconstitutional.
Ueitele said he agreed with counsel for the respondents that the fence’s erection is authorised by a statutory scheme comprising the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act of 1956, and the Animal Diseases and Parasites Ordinance of 1959.
The judge then addressed the matter of Amupanda’s testimony that the people from the north are treated differently from the people from the south. Ueitele said during cross-examination, it was put to Amupanda that for the purpose of controlling the spread of the foot-and-mouth disease, the country has four zones (infected, buffer, surveillance and free). This, he said, entails that the region consisting of the surveillance and free zones (the region south of the fence), is the region considered by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as free from foot-and-mouth disease. “What is prohibited is the conveying of meat products by any person (and not only persons living in those zones or areas) from areas zoned as foot-and-mouth disease-infected areas to areas zoned as surveillance or foot-and-mouth disease-free zones.”
Therefore, the judge found that Amupanda’s testimony that people from the south are treated differently from people from the north to be poor, vacillating and of so romancing a character to be of no reliance. He added that the activist did not place a single piece of evidence which demonstrates how irrational and arbitrary the government acts when it restricts the conveying of animal products from one zone to another.
Hence, he found that Amupanda failed to place sufficient evidence before court to show the possibility that the redline violates constitutional principles. Ueitele further found that Amupanda failed to place sufficient evidence showing that the search of his vehicle on 17 May 2021 was unlawful.
The judge said Amupanda dismally failed to place any factual or legal basis on which the court must restrain the Minister of Agriculture and Land Reform or any of his officials from confiscating red meat from him or any other Namibian, meant for private and own consumption.
This ruling will enforce the government’s position on maintaining the fence as a critical measure for controlling livestock diseases from one zone to the other.
Ueitele reiterated that the fence serves as an animal disease control mechanism, and not for the restriction of the movement of people.
Ueitele’s Dilemma
Before the ruling, Ueitele indicated that he faced a dilemma of whether or not to recuse himself from the matter due the allegations publicised by Amupanda on social media. He stated the impropriety allegations against him were vague, baseless, unreasonable and unsubstantiated, especially the one questioning his handling of the case.
Among the allegations, Amupanda claimed the judge had been exempted from paying taxes on two farms. However, the judge refrained from defending himself on this particular allegation.
He nonetheless indicated that on three occasions, he had disclosed the fact that he owned a farm south of the redline in the Omaheke region, and that the litigants had confirmed being comfortable with him presiding over the case.
The judge said Amupanda omitted information on the legal basis of the exemption, and that an Act guided the Minister of Agriculture to exempt qualifying farmers. “Therefore, singling me out from more than 2 000 individuals is malicious, and there is no basis and is unsubstantiated,” he stressed.
Amupanda also alleged that a brother of the judge had received land for free under former agriculture minister Carl Schlettwein. To this, he retorted that the allegations are vague. Another allegation was that he benefitted from a Government Institutions Pension Fund loan of N$5 million to buy an abattoir which was later written off, but the judge said the allegations are vague and unsubstantiated.
Ueitele added that Amupanda omitted information of the bank account that received such money, and the terms of the loan.
Amupanda has vowed to fight back. “We have never seen something like that, a guy talking about our parents and that we must go and exhume people, so we are definitely going to the Supreme Court to appeal.”
He further expressed frustration over the assignment of the case to a single judge. “Look, we know that it’s not going to be an easy thing. Usually, constitutional cases and constitutional challenges are heard by a full bench. We don’t understand why this case was given to a farmer, but even by himself, you could see already he was even the one that was leading evidence”, Amupanda said.
He further questioned the impartiality of the proceedings, suggesting that the outcome was predetermined.
“So clearly, we didn’t expect anything different from him because it was already very clear to us what’s going to happen. There was no fair trial here.”