Belinda's court case was set for today, 8 May 2014. I decided to attend and arrived at the court at 09h15. At 09h45 people went into the court room only to be told that the magistrate was delayed since he had to go for a medical check-up. So everybody left the room to wait outside again.
At 10h10 we were allowed back into court room. The Magistrate, the prosecutor, a translator and police officer sat in front. Nothing happened until 10h30, when proceedings started with a pensioner being accused of not wearing a safety belt while driving. The magistrate informed him that the fine for this was N$1000,00. Pensioner objected on account of not being able to pay the fine. Magistrate reduced the fine to N$500.00 on condition it was paid within a week. Case closed. More cases were put before the Magistrate.
It was impossible for the public to hear anything as both the prosecutor as well as the Magistrate were speaking in hushed voices. Prosecutor sits with her back to accused bench and public and addresses only the magistrate. The only person that could be understood was the translator. From what he said the public could gather that they were asked if they would represent themselves or needed legal advisers supplied by the state. All the cases were then postponed to a later date.
Belinda's case was to be heard last. Everybody had left the court room when she and co-accused, her son aged 16, had to take their stand. I slipped past the police officer to be present as a witness to the proceedings. Except for me the only other person present was the mother of the young boy.
Belinda had a copy of the Namibian Constitution plus a print-out of the "Steps in Court" in her hands. When asked if she understood the case against her, she used Step 1. asking the magistrate if this was a civil or a criminal case. First of all the magistrate snottily(sarcastically) told her that he would decide which question to answer and which not. Then he said that this was a criminal court, so hers was a criminal case. Then Belinda unfortunately departed from the official language and went on in her own language with Step 2.1.2., referring to Article 12 of the Constitution. Immediately the magistrate took advantage of her uncertainty, telling her that he does not have the authority to dismiss the case as that rests with the state. He went on asking her if she had legal adviser or any untrained person from the public who told her this or if it came from herself, indirectly referring to me sitting in there. She said it came from herself and the Constitution in front of her. Since she went on in her own language and the translator admitted that he was not conversant enough in that language to properly translate what she said, I am unable to precisely report what was said afterwards. She did not answer the question if she wanted a legal adviser and the magistrate went on to co-accused, asking him the question. He was confused and could not answer, so his guardian applied for legal help instead.
Then the case was postponed until July, I could not hear the date.
Analysis
Daring to ask a question in court caught the magistrate off guard, made him apprehensive so his voice got louder.
Mentioning the Constitution clearly put the Magistrate on the defensive so he used sarcasm to defend himself.
Reverting to a language other than English put defendant at a disadvantage, at the mercy of the translator and placed the ball back in courts field.
Deviating from the Steps then showed uncertainty which was immediately exploited by the magistrate.
What is to be learned from all this?
If you want to use the Steps in court, DO NOT deviate. Use them exactly as they are, in English. They are a transcript from the audio here, which is authoritative, meaning it comes from those in the know, legal advisers.
My Conclusion:
1. The accused as well as the people are left in the dark as to what type of hearing it is.
The first appearance before court seems to solely be a bail hearing.
The second appears to be a hearing to induce the accused to use a legal adviser. What could be next - the trial or another puppet hearing?
2. There obviously seems to something secretive about these proceedings,
seeing that the public is not supposed to hear what is being said, nor the accused to know what awaits them.
3. The Constitution no longer is the superior law of the land, it's worthless. It apparently is superseded by civil law only known to legal practitioners.
4. The magistrates clearly seem to fall in a special, category of human beings, addressed as "your worship" instead of "your honor".
5. If the magistrate does not have the authority to dismiss a case, who has?
6. The system as applied now does not guarantee a fair trial to the Namibian people.
At 10h10 we were allowed back into court room. The Magistrate, the prosecutor, a translator and police officer sat in front. Nothing happened until 10h30, when proceedings started with a pensioner being accused of not wearing a safety belt while driving. The magistrate informed him that the fine for this was N$1000,00. Pensioner objected on account of not being able to pay the fine. Magistrate reduced the fine to N$500.00 on condition it was paid within a week. Case closed. More cases were put before the Magistrate.
It was impossible for the public to hear anything as both the prosecutor as well as the Magistrate were speaking in hushed voices. Prosecutor sits with her back to accused bench and public and addresses only the magistrate. The only person that could be understood was the translator. From what he said the public could gather that they were asked if they would represent themselves or needed legal advisers supplied by the state. All the cases were then postponed to a later date.
Belinda's case was to be heard last. Everybody had left the court room when she and co-accused, her son aged 16, had to take their stand. I slipped past the police officer to be present as a witness to the proceedings. Except for me the only other person present was the mother of the young boy.
Belinda had a copy of the Namibian Constitution plus a print-out of the "Steps in Court" in her hands. When asked if she understood the case against her, she used Step 1. asking the magistrate if this was a civil or a criminal case. First of all the magistrate snottily(sarcastically) told her that he would decide which question to answer and which not. Then he said that this was a criminal court, so hers was a criminal case. Then Belinda unfortunately departed from the official language and went on in her own language with Step 2.1.2., referring to Article 12 of the Constitution. Immediately the magistrate took advantage of her uncertainty, telling her that he does not have the authority to dismiss the case as that rests with the state. He went on asking her if she had legal adviser or any untrained person from the public who told her this or if it came from herself, indirectly referring to me sitting in there. She said it came from herself and the Constitution in front of her. Since she went on in her own language and the translator admitted that he was not conversant enough in that language to properly translate what she said, I am unable to precisely report what was said afterwards. She did not answer the question if she wanted a legal adviser and the magistrate went on to co-accused, asking him the question. He was confused and could not answer, so his guardian applied for legal help instead.
Then the case was postponed until July, I could not hear the date.
Analysis
Daring to ask a question in court caught the magistrate off guard, made him apprehensive so his voice got louder.
Mentioning the Constitution clearly put the Magistrate on the defensive so he used sarcasm to defend himself.
Reverting to a language other than English put defendant at a disadvantage, at the mercy of the translator and placed the ball back in courts field.
Deviating from the Steps then showed uncertainty which was immediately exploited by the magistrate.
What is to be learned from all this?
If you want to use the Steps in court, DO NOT deviate. Use them exactly as they are, in English. They are a transcript from the audio here, which is authoritative, meaning it comes from those in the know, legal advisers.
My Conclusion:
1. The accused as well as the people are left in the dark as to what type of hearing it is.
The first appearance before court seems to solely be a bail hearing.
The second appears to be a hearing to induce the accused to use a legal adviser. What could be next - the trial or another puppet hearing?
2. There obviously seems to something secretive about these proceedings,
seeing that the public is not supposed to hear what is being said, nor the accused to know what awaits them.
3. The Constitution no longer is the superior law of the land, it's worthless. It apparently is superseded by civil law only known to legal practitioners.
4. The magistrates clearly seem to fall in a special, category of human beings, addressed as "your worship" instead of "your honor".
5. If the magistrate does not have the authority to dismiss a case, who has?
6. The system as applied now does not guarantee a fair trial to the Namibian people.
No comments:
Post a Comment