The former Swapo Party Youth League (SPYL) leaders that are challenging their expulsion from the party “were young and,
therefore, they were not formally disciplined”. They were instead “engaged, consulted and admonished” against serious
misconduct, Swapo’s lawyers told the High Court on Friday.
Advocate Vas Soni, who appeared on behalf of the ruling party, was explaining why the four were expelled without any disciplinary process. “Given that the SPYL leaders were young, they were not formally disciplined, but party leaders regularly heard them, engaged
with and consulted them, admonished them and solemnly warned the SPYL leaders that a repeat of such serious misconduct
would result in expulsion,” Soni argued before acting Judge Collins Parker, who is due to deliver his judgment on May 12.
George Kambala, Dimbulukeni Nauyoma, Job Amupanda and Dr Elijah Ngurare took Swapo to court on the grounds that the party’s disciplinary procedures – as provided for in the party constitution – were not followed and that they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves.
Soni said the four have over the past four years publicly campaigned against and undermined Swapo’s policies and vilified its leaders.
Soni shocked all and sundry when he announced that “Swapo is not a public body that needs to justify its decisions.” Despite not challenging the substantive validity of Swapo’s actions, Soni said the applicants seek far-reaching substantive relief for the party
to restore their membership and to install them to their former positions.
“Significantly, they do not tender to comply with their obligations under the party’s constitution, which requires them to comply with its resolutions, decisions and directives,” argued Soni.
Soni also argued that the courts should not come to the assistance of members expelled from political parties, unless the expulsion leads to the violation of an enforceable right, such as property rights. “Courts do not allow disgruntled members of political
parties to use the legal process to settle what are in essence political disputes,” said Soni, much to the displeasure of the many people that packed the courtroom.
Soni, who alleged that Ngurare is “the ideological father” of the Affirmative Repositioning (AR) movement, told the court that the dispute between the applicants and the respondents is political, therefore the court should dismiss the application and not
reinstate the four.
As Soni continued explaining why Swapo acted in the manner it did, Judge Parker wanted to know how the party found the applicants guilty if they were not subjected to any disciplinary procedure. “The only way the Swapo could have found the applicants
were guilty was by following the procedures. If you don’t follow the due process then you’ll be assuming things,” he told Soni.
The veteran South African advocate stressed that a disciplinary hearing is not the only mechanism that must precede
an expulsion and warned that freedom of speech has its limits. Soni said the land grab acts carried out by the AR group
just weeks before the national elections harmed the party’s poll prospects and, therefore, the party had to take a decision
to suspend, and eventually expel them.
Maleka is appearing for the plaintiffs on the instructions of Windhoek-based lawyer Amupanda Kamanja. Soni is representing Swapo
and its top leadership on the instructions of Conradie and Damaseb law firm.