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.   


 

 
 

 



 

 

 

Enforce Your Right in Court and Win.

Most of us may try to stay out of court during our lifetime, yet there is no guarantee to our being successful at that. It therefore is important to prepare yourself ahead of time in order to handle such a situation to your benefit. Being prepared is half the battle won already. I know of at least one person who would have been able to avoid being incarcerated if he had been prepared properly.

The video below explains how you can learn to enforce your right in a fair hearing in court. Never give the court jurisdiction over you by entering a plea.

  

Even though the above video was made for Americans, the procedure can be applied in any country where human rights are enshrined in a constitution. Thus a knowledge of ones constitutional rights is a prerequisite.

In Namibia the right to a fair trial is enshrined in Article 12 of the Namibian Constitution.