#3 Common Law – applicable in Namibia?

The question is: can common law courts be installed in Namibia?

We have a Constitution hailed as the most progressive in the world. This Constitution solidly enshrines our naturally inherited human rights. Thus one would think that common law, which is rooted in Natural Law, would have been given its rightful place within that Constitution.  This, however, is not the case. Instead, Roman/Civil Law has been cleverly weaved into the Constitution by those in control of the whole process.

We are not given a jury of the people, like in England, Canada and America, but judges appointed by the President. Can we then truthfully boast about having the most progressive Constitution in the world? I do not think so. But I digress.

Common law is an inalienable part of any democracy

Namibia claims to be a democratic Republic. In a Democracy, civil servants are elected by the people as their representatives and are thus accountable to the people, the community who elected them. It is then the duty of the people to enforce this accountability, not the duty of those elected.

When democratically elected governments do not address matters of concern to the community, they neglect their duty of office and must expect investigations concerning this neglect.

Such investigations can only be done by the people in whose service the government is placed. Public officials themselves do not have the jurisdiction to investigate their own wrong actions just as state-appointed judges have no jurisdictional competence to rule on the criminality and guilt of their employers.

That jurisdiction rests on the voting public. That is common sense – common law.

Common law is enacted by common law courts

Namibias’ courts are run as civil law courts, where the public at best is granted spectator status. Those courts do not serve the public. They are designed for the protection of rulers and tyrants.

The authority to establish jury-run common law courts is vested in the inherent sovereignty of the people and their resolve to uphold that sovereignty. Thus common law courts can be established in any community anywhere in the world.

The purpose of common law courts is the protection of the community and every part in it, including the protection of the inalienable rights of every person within that community.

Since that also is the purpose of the Namibian Constitution, the establishment of jury-run common law courts in Namibia is constitutional and lawful, even if not specifically mentioned therein. 
If we the people have the right to set up political parties opposing the government (Article 17+18), we most certainly have the right to set up common law courts.

The foremost principles of jury-run common law courts are due process and the normal Rules of Evidence. These principles, once again, are stipulated clearly in the Namibian Constitution. Thus jury-run common law courts would not violate, but uphold the constitution.

The go-ahead to establish such courts only depends on the needs of the community and their resolve to protect their inalienable rights and sovereignty.  It is not subject to any political system, government or any other legal or moral authority.  

If the Namibian communities decide they’ve had enough of manipulation and stealing of public monies and assets, they have the right and duty to start investigations to protect what is rightfully theirs.

For a more detailed explanation of jury-run common law courts you can go HERE .

#2 Common Law – what exactly is that?

In previous posts of this blog I have given broad outlines of different kinds of Law in practice today. One of those is Common Law. The Thesaurus gives “widespread”, “general” and “universal” as synonyms for Common. As the second part of its name implies, it has to do with rules and regulations.

There are but two rules/commandments given to Humanity, which most of us are familiar with and therefore can rightly be called “Universal Laws”. Those two concern Love, love and respect for our Creator and love and respect for what He created. Love does no harm to anyone or anything that was created.

Then there are rules and regulations which communities of people have adopted by unanimous decision in order to maintain peace amongst each other and regulate their day to day affairs. The Mosaic Law for instance was commonly known amongst the Israelites, it was their Common Law. 

Authority vs Tyranny

Common Law, then, is rooted in the Natural Law of love and care for each other. It is expressed by the people, for the people. It is activated by the people when they realize the need for a law. Its purpose is the protection of the inherent freedom and autonomy of all the people within a community.  It operates on the simple principle of what is best for the community and every part in it.  

Any legal decision that only serves a certain part of the community is not rooted in Common Law, not rooted in love.  Roman/Civil Law only serves parts of the community and is therefore diametrically opposed to Common Law.

Jury vs Judge

Under Common Law the inherent capacity of a sovereign people to objectively judge right from wrong is represented by a Jury of at least 12 independent people, who only serve on a temporary basis, judging or deciding on a specific case or issue. Their unanimous decision is respected and accepted as final. 

Under Roman/Civil Law the decision of one judge can be repealed by another one, depending on the arguments presented by people trained to look for loopholes in the confusion of statutes. Thus lies become truth and truth is no longer truth.

Court of the people vs Court of Rulers

Though Common Law is used everywhere in everyday life, certain matters and situations need to be dealt with more formally, before a tribunal of people in a specific place called a court.

Common Law Courts are courts of the people, where people are tried by their neighbors, who act as Jury, everyone being equal, having the same rights, freedoms and sovereignty. In order to prevent chaos at such a hearing, certain proven rules are followed, just as in the courts of the rulers.

The big difference is that instead of one state appointed judge, juries of 12 normal, untrained people act in that capacity on a temporary basis for the time of trial.  This is a better guarantee for a fair trial, as the Rules of evidence and just procedure have to be followed strictly in order for the Jury to arrive at just decision.

In the courts of the rulers judges regularly ignore rules of evidence and just procedure and are allowed to do so by their statutes. They are even allowed to silence a party in a dispute. Being appointed by the state in a permanent capacity, they can easily be politically manipulated and bribed.

Summary

A truly sovereign and free community can only stay sovereign and free when the people within the community take charge of their own affairs on every level.

As John Hancock, a founding father of the American Republic, declared in 1777:  

“If we have not Courts that are established and maintained by the People, rather than by bribable Judges, then we will have no Republic … Our Constitution and our Nation will rise or fall according to the independence of our Courts.”

In the next part of this series on Common Law I’ll discuss its applicability in Namibia.  

Common Law Part 1 – is it still used?

In two of my previous posts I have given short overviews of the different kinds of Laws that exist, namely Admiralty, Roman/Civil and Common Law. Why it’s important that we know about them I pointed out here. I will now proceed with Common Law, the Law of the People, which I think will come into more general use in a free society.

Is Common Law still used today?

In 2013 a shot was heard around the world when Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, resigned. What may not be generally known is the fact that the International CommonLaw Court of Justice (ICLCJ) had prosecuted and convicted him and many other high profile people for crimes against Humanity. Whether the popes resignation was due to that indictment or not is debatable.

Fact is that people in many countries now start to realize that Admiralty and Roman/Civil Law have been used throughout the ages by the elite to keep We the people in submission to them. We have been taught and brainwashed to believe that we are unable to rule ourselves, that taking the law into our own hands is illegal and punishable, that we have to be controlled in everything by those “in the know”.

This movement toward Common Law can also be followed here. Seeing all this then tells us that Common Law is the way to go in the new era dawning on us. Therefore we have to find out exactly what this is all about in order to grab back our freedom and sovereignty, which the money elite have stolen from us.

As long as we stick our heads in the quicksand of their statutory teachings and don’t dare to investigate the avenues available to us to free ourselves from tyranny, we willingly give them the power to crush us, steal from us and exterminate us, which has been their plan all along. 

In 1649 already Gerrard Winstanley summed this up thus: “For what you call the Law is but a club of the rich over the lowest of men, sanctifying the conquest of the earth by a few and making their theft the way of things. But over and above these pitiful statutes of yours that enclose the common land and reduce us to poverty to make you fat stands the Law of Creation, which renders judgement on rich and poor alike, making them one. For freedom is the man who will thus turn the world upside down, therefore no wonder he has enemies.”

I am for freedom, what about you?

Are All Namibian News Media controlled by Government?

The title for this post arises from an unreported court case against the Government of Namibia in 2007. I'm referring to  
CASE NO.: I 2852/05

MALCOLM McNAB & OTHERS –vs– MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS N.O. & OTHERS

Not a single newspaper ever mentioned this case, although it was of utmost importance to the people of Namibia. 

Aren't our newspapers supposed to inform the people of important events concerning the nation? Apparently not. And specifically not when our human rights are involved and a state institution is at fault. That seems to be a tabu, a no-no subject. 

The fact that this case went by unreported places a big question mark on the independence of our news media.  

So why was this particular case so important for we the people? 
The case was based on our constitutionally guaranteed, inherent human rights, which were violated by an institution of the State. 
In his judgment acting judge Angula stated that: 

“An arrested person has a right to be held in conditions which are not degrading. It is a violation of an arrested person’s constitutional right to be held in such horrendous conditions. It is plainly unconstitutional and unlawful. We all have accepted the Constitution as our Supreme Law. We are all parties to this sacred contract. As a judge, I am oath-bound to uphold the Constitution for the benefit of all who live in Namibia. It is of no consequence to me that those who are responsible for the upkeep of holding cells say that they have no resources to maintain the holding cells in a clean and hygienic condition in compliance with the dictates of the Constitution. It has been held by this court that a lack of financial resources should not be a factor to be taken into account by a court in enforcing the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The State is constitutionally bound to find and make resources available, failing which it will be held liable for violation of the person’s fundamental rights.”


Especially the last sentence of this statement is of far reaching significance for we the people. The state is not beyond our supreme law, as so many may think. The State is liable. 

So why did this case stay unreported, if not to protect state institutions? Daily our news media report on court cases, but this one was not considered news worthy. Why? 

Then we come to the verdict: plaintiffs case was dismissed on a technicality. In judge Angula's words:

"The particulars of claim therefore lacked the necessary averment to sustain the relief claimed. I am of the further view that had the plaintiffs' claims been properly pleaded, the circumstances of this case would have been appropriate as envisaged by sub-articles 25(4) of the Constitution to award monetary compensation arising from the unlawful violation of their right to human dignity. "

Is the public to be kept in the dark as to why a sure case like this one can be dismissed? Are we not supposed to know how to plead a case properly?

The questions I am asking here need to be considered by every Namibian who just accepts as truth what appears in our newspapers or other news media. It has been proven time and time again that Main Stream Media is controlled by the cabal, the 1%, who want to keep we the people stupid, preoccupied with banalities, so they can do what they want. If we let them get away with this by not fighting for our rights, we can in the end only blame ourselves. 

Ombudsman to bring Change?

The Office of the Ombudsman was installed according to Article 89 of our Constitution. He is supposed to be independent and all organs of State are duty bound to assist him/her in the performance of his duties,which are set out in Article 91.  Art.91 (e) gives him the power to take appropriate actions against any violations of the Constitution by any State organ or institution. 
According to Art.91 (g) he also has to report "annually to the National Assembly on the exercise of his or her powers and functions." These reports can be found HERE.

Considering my article about the present archaic conditions in the Okahandja Police cells in 2014, the Ombudsman's Police Cells Report of course caught my eye, so I downloaded it. It is an eye opener in many ways, but mainly regarding the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the Ombudsman in Namibia.   

Since 2006 the Ombudsman has done his duty investigating and reporting this matter, yet to date 2014 nothing has changed. The archaic conditions still exist and Article 8 of our Constitution keeps being grossly violated by the Namibian Police. 

The question is WHY?

As I asked before: has our Constitution been abandoned? Or do we just have a bunch of illiterate, incompetent, selfish puppets of the New World Order in our government?

One thing becomes obvious from the Ombudsman's report: by interviewing only station commanders and their deputies, the truth is being hidden from the public as well as from those in control. 
"The information included in the report was again gathered at the hand of a pro-forma questionnaire which was used in order to standardise information; also, the information was acquired through interviews with station commanders or their deputies; as before, detainees were not interviewed in order to maintain the focus of the report on general conditions/circumstances/problems and possible reasons for the prevailing conditions, rather than problems experienced by individuals."
Not the rights of station commanders and their deputies are violated by the circumstances and conditions prevailing in police holding cells, but the human rights of the detainees awaiting trial. 

Sure, station commanders and their deputies know that healthy food, soap and toilet paper gets delivered to stations, so they can answer the pro-forma questionnaire truthfully, hiding what happens between receipt and actual delivery to cell inmates.

And just as sure detainees, if interviewed in cells, will not talk about their experiences for fear of retribution afterwards.

To really find the Truth, unannounced personal visits and inspections by really independent persons have to be carried out regularly.  

My Conclusion:
By maintaining the focus of the report on general conditions/circumstances/problems the Ombudsman circumvents his duty as stipulated in Art.91 (a) of the Constitution.  

The Report thus looses its force and can be filed away as just another report.

By using a pro forma questionnaire and interviewing only those in control the Ombudsman has associated himself with those whom he is supposed to control, thus loosing his authority and independence.   


 

 
 

 



 

 

 

Colonial Rule still evident in Namibia

The general perception amongst the Namibian population is that no change can be seen since the countries independence. Many even reckon it has become worse since 1990. Colonial governance is perpetuated under SWAPO rule. The system of Apartheid has not really been done away with. It is continued under the new name of Affirmative Action and has thus become part of the Constitution(Article 23). It is used to solely serve members of the ruling party.

These are grave complaints which have to be addressed if a renewed fight for freedom is to be averted. The question is: does Government have any intention of addressing these issues or is a rebellion part of the plan of the NWO (New World Order)?

I believe one problem lies in the continued use of Government Acts dating back as far as 1944 and 1970, which are only amended in minor points like inserting new names(correctional for prison) or adding she where only he was originally used. This is ridiculous! All those Acts originated from the Colonial Rule and are thus to be regarded with utmost suspicion unless the status quo of Colonial Rule is to be upheld, which seems to be the case.

Article 25 (1)(b) of the Namibian Constitution upholds those "laws" until amended, repealed or declared unconstitutional by a competent court. Yet after nearly 25 years, most of those Acts still haven't been repealed or declared unconstitutional. Is that not a clear signal that Colonial rule is to be continued? Is that not an indication of the loyalties of our courts?

In August 2008 the LAC stated:"The LAC believes the current Criminal Procedure Act is in conflict with the Constitution."  Unfortunately they did not yet publish an update to that case. Yet to date that Act basically still stands as it was in 1977, with just the height of fines increased by an amendment in 2010.
Is that not a clear signal that Colonial rule is to be continued? 

And now I ask you, where is the justice in fining a pensioner with a N$650 per month pension N$500 for not wearing a seat belt and pretending that to be a big favor? It's giving with one hand and grabbing back with the other. 

Do you still think we're independent and free?

Related articles:
The different types of law

A day in Okahandja Court

Common Law vs Civil Law







 

Is the Constitution still relevant today?

In various of my previous posts I have referred to the Namibian Constitution, which has been called the most progressive in the world. I won't debate that, as I'm not qualified to do that. My intention here is to persuade my Namibian readers to discuss the relevance of this Constitution for Namibians today, 24 years after Namibia's Independence. 

Of course my international readers are welcome to chip in too.

In the Constitution Book  various young Namibians answered certain questions regarding this relevance of the constitution for the 21st century. Their answers confirm the problems I have been writing about on this blog. 

Most Namibians have not yet internalized the Constitution.
This is mainly due to two facts - 
the inability to read and understand English or Afrikaans  (older population) and the lack of civil(constitutional) education in our schools.

Adopted laws + policies directly oppose the Constitution.  
This leads to the continuation of the previous system and no real change.
This can be due to -
the inability or unwillingness of MP's to discuss vital issues or
outside influence and bribery to maintain the Status Quo of instability.

In order to kick off a discussion here I pose one question for starters:
How can we ensure that all Namibians can internalize the Constitution?





If that question does not appeal to you as a subject for discussion, what about: 
Would you say Article 95 of the Constitution has been adequately put into practice as a State policy?  
As I pointed out in previous posts, as a free and sovereign people of a democratic Namibia, we are duty bound to keep and uphold what others fought for with their lives, since we don't want to loose it. If we are unwilling to open our mouths and speak our minds, we do not deserve the Constitution we have. 
 
P.S. Posting as anonymous is fine as long as you identify yourself with a letter following it like anon A or anon B etc. 

Other relevant posts:
 
Has the Namibian Constitution been abandoned?