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. 

Day in Okahandja Court with Belinda //Ga­roës

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.