I recently attended a court hearing of the Oukwanyama Traditional Authority (OTA) presided over by the Queen of Ovakwanyama, Her Majesty Martha Mwadinomho Christian Nelumbu, which to me appeared to be a kangaroo court type of deliberations.
Looking at what was happening, I started asking myself as to who is advising the newly crowned Queen on legal and human rights issues.
The constitutional requirement of Article 12 which says: “All persons charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law, after having had the opportunity of calling witnesses and cross-examining those called against them,” seems not to apply.
Nelumbu appears to be a pawn in the hands of her ill-advised counsellors whose ultimate aim is only to acquire positions for themselves or their relatives and cronies within the Oukwanyama Traditional Authority.
Flanked by the newly appointed Senior Headman of Ohaingu Sipora Weyulu, the wife of former DTA MP Gottlieb Dan, and George Nelulu, the controversial businessman and OTA Chairman who recently was in conflict with the Directorate of Forestry for fencing off a piece of communal land earmarked for a community project, the Queen presided over two cases decided unfairly.
Many people who attended the court hearing are blaming Nelulu, the Queen, Job Haihambo, Sipora Weyulu, Angula “Kapitiya” Mwatotele, Amon Sheefeni Shipanga, Simon Kaupa Mwatotele, Wilbard Abed Nghishitelwa, Ester Nepembe-Nakale and others as having turned themselves into oppressive instruments of the community.
They were the ones who spearheaded the decisions that have caused commotion and dissatisfaction in the community.
One case in point is the suspension of Senior headman of Okelemba Lucas Shihepo Shinedima, 82, who was ousted because he refused to settle the debts of his deceased brother while the deceased’s estate was inherited by his wife and children.
As a way to bring back former DTA MP Dan and Hangula Vatilifa Vaendwanawa into the mainstream of the traditional authority, they used spurious reasons to get rid of Shinedima.
In fact, they have appointed Vaendwanawa , who was Shinedima’s assistant, to act while he is on suspension. It is very strange that someone is being punished for the “sins” of other people on the basis of hearsay and guesswork.
Why not ask the widow and the children to pay the debts since the deceased has more cattle at Mangetti under the care of the widow?
Apart from being manipulated by failed politicians-turned-traditional-leaders, Nelumbu, who came to power after the death of her uncle Kornelius Mwetupunga Shelungu in 2005, is also accused of violating the customary law which brought her to power.
One typical example is the controversial case presided over by herself, related to the leadership dispute in Omatando no.2 near Ongwediva.
A decision was taken that the village will remain without a headman for the next three years and all the functions of the headman will be carried out by the OTA from Ohangwena. In my view the court hearing was a typical kangaroo court set-up.
One of the parties involved in the dispute was not allowed to call witnesses, to take any notes, to submit any documentary proof (because only oral testimony/evidence is allowed), to cross-examine anyone, was repeatedly interrupted from all sides of the courtroom including the OTA Chairman Nelulu, and insulted and belittled mostly by Senior headman Job Haihambo of Ohakafiya.
The Queen was just sitting and watching as her henchmen were doing their dirty work. It seems the Queen is not even aware of Articles 5 and 8 in the Namibian constitution which calls for respect for fundamental human rights and dignity, neither is she aware, it appears, about the government’s decentralisation policy.
If she was aware of this, she could not have presided over a meeting and endorsed a decision to make Omatando village leaderless for three years and that the residents of Omatando should travel about 200 km (going and coming back) to Ohangwena to get service which could be provided by a headman in their own village.
Where does this one leave the Queen in relation to de-centralisation, respect for human rights and dignity? Some of the residents of Omatando are old people, much older than herself – are they also going to travel that long distance?
It seems the Queen was crowned to violate the customary and statute laws of the land as well as to oppress and suppress people as was the practice of primitive kings and queens of the stone ages.
It is clearly explained that the customary law should be the norms, rules of procedures, tradition and usages of traditional community “in so far as they do not conflict with the Namibian Constitution or with any other written law applicable in Namibia”.
In terms of the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000, traditional leaders should “assist and cooperate with the Government, regional councils and local authority councils in the execution of their policies and keep the members of the traditional community informed of the developmental projects in their area”.
By sending people some 200 km to Ohangwena, is it in line with the policy of decentralisation? Is it cooperation with the government structures such as local and regional councils?
How does the Queen explain the logic behind such a decision whereby the residents of Omatando in Okatana constituency in Oshana Region are required to get testimonial letters and other services from Ohangwena Region? Is this not in conflict with the smooth running of government administration?
Can someone in Ohangwena some 200 km away know who are the vulnerable children in Omatando, how many people and houses in the village, certify with certainty any death, birth or natural disasters such as storm wind or fire, without getting the information from the local leader on the ground?
Does it make sense for the Councillor of Okatana constituency in Oshana Region where Omatando is located to travel to Ohangwena in order to get the information required to assist the community under his care?
One is also tempted to ask whether such shortsighted decision complies with Article 102 and 104 of the Namibian constitution which created structures of regional and local governments including the Council of Traditional Leaders and the Delimitation Commission.
As everybody can see, the decision is totally treacherous and truly undermining the administration of the government and the supreme law of the land, the Namibian constitution.
It appears the decision was taken not only to undermine the government administration but also to protect one of the subjects of investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission Amon Sheefeni Shipanga.
He publicly stated during the meeting at Onamutayi on September 07, 2007 in the presence of the Governor of Oshana, the Chief Regional Officer, the Deputy Director of Administration, Omatando villagers and some headmen that he could not stomach one of the parties to the leadership dispute to be the headman of the village since he had exposed him for alleged cheating and abuse of power. Shipanga repeated the same statement on November 13 at Ohangwena.
Is there no law in Namibia protecting whistleblowers?
The Senior Headman is apparently a subject of investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) following allegations made by the widow of the late Paulus Jeremia, Rachel Kakoto from Omusheshe village that he has cheated her of more than N$70 000 from gravel mined from her land.
According to the papers I have seen dated November 19 2006, Shipanga allegedly signed an agreement with Nexus construction company without Kakoto’s consent in order to receive the money.
If the Queen is siding with Shipanga for alleged cheating and abuse of power, does this comply with Section 3 (1) and 2 (a) of Act No. 25 of 2000 which says: “the functions of a traditional authority, in relation to the traditional community which it leads, shall be to promote peace and welfare amongst the members of the community, supervise and ensure the observance of the customary law of the community by its members”, and “to assist the Namibian police and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and investigation of crime and, subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act no.51 of 1977), the apprehension of offenders within their jurisdiction”.
William J. Mbangula
P.O. Box 361
Oshakati
Cell. 0812318950