Why Namibia is not ready for state capture inquiries

PHIL YA NANGOLOH WRITES:

The state capture corruption which has been plaguing South Africa is essentially the same as the one which has been marring Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

These countries have one thing in common having been being ruled by highly corrupt and authoritarian leaderships of former armed liberation movements. A question has been asked as to why it is impossible to have commissions of inquiry into state capture corruption here in Namibia similar to the one(s) established in neighboring South Africa.

I have no doubts that you may have your own views, ideas and answers to the above question. However, I am here to only give my own views, ideas and answers as to why it is impossible to have Zondo-style judicial commissions of inquiry into state capture corruption in Namibia.

SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

The Namibian Constitution (“NC”) provides for a very strong regime of separation of powers and checks and balances.

However, our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances between especially Parliament and Cabinet does not exist in practice. This is so because members of Parliament and members of Cabinet are materially one and the same. This is the case even if the NC stipulates that members of Cabinet are answerable, responsible and accountable to members of Parliament.

This is a very serious constitutional violation and this is a form of corruption technically known as conflict of interest. It is called conflict of interest (“COI”) because the President and his Cabinet Ministers are answerable, responsible and accountable to themselves.

In this specific regard, COI has the effect that the people who initiate laws in Cabinet are the very same people who enact such laws in Parliament and again they are very same people who implement such laws through Cabinet. This is why we have an overbearing President and Cabinet (Executive Branch) in this country.

The laws which these people initiate, make and implement are geared to shield the Executive Branch from the Rule of Law. This is why there is so much impunity in Namibia.

THE JUDICIARY

The NC stipulates that the Judiciary shall be independent and shall be subject ONLY to the Constitution and the law. However, although the NC enables the Judiciary to be independent, the law which is made through COI cripples such independence.

The other factor which is gravely undermining the independence of the Judiciary is the question of historical association with the ruling Swapo Party. Common law doctrine on the independence of judiciary stipulates that judges must not only be independent, but they must necessarily be seen to be independent.

A practice which has a crippling effect on the independence of our Judiciary is the system of acting judges. Acting judges are not permanent judges and their tenure is not fixed or secured. Some of these acting judges are seconded from neighboring countries (including Zimbabwe) where the independence of the judiciary does not exist.

All Namibian judges, the Prosecutor-General and the Ombudsman are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission (“JSC”).

On the one hand, the Ombudsman (an ethnic minority) is seemingly fearful of the overbearing Executive Branch which is controlled by members of the majority ethnic group. On the other hand, the overbearing Executive Branch is not bothered by the constitutional powers of the Office of the Ombudsman. More often than not, the Ombudsman is just ignored, with impunity. On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman is just starved of the requisite human and financial resources.

PUPPET ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

The Anti-Corruption Commission (“ACC”) is established in terms of an Act of Parliament which has been initiated and enacted in the manner described above.

The Director of the ACC is appointed by the subservient Parliament on the recommendation (read “nomination”) of the President. The NC however stipulates that ACC “shall be an independent and impartial body”. This is in practice a very big joke.

ONE-DOMINANT PARTY STATE

The other major factor why it is impossible for the time being to establish Zondo-style commissions of inquiries in Namibia is because the country has a one-dominant party which has been governing this country with utmost impunity.

Namibia has one-dominant ruling party because the country has a one-dominant ethnic majority group (i.e. Ambo ethnic group), and because Namibian political parties are organized along ethnic and or tribal lines. Ethnic Ambos (and author hereof is also ethnic Ambo), who make up at least 50 percent of Namibia’s entire population, make up more than 80 percent of the membership of the ruling Swapo Party. The same situation does not exist in neighboring South Africa.

One of the biggest factor supporting impunity and state capture corruption in Namibia is a weak, fragmented and ethnicized political opposition in the country.

A puppet, timid, weak and or non-existent civil society is also one the biggest reasons why Namibia is not capable at this stage to establish Zondo-style commissions of inquiry. The term “civil society” includes labor unions.

A submissive Church is another factor exacerbating a culture or corruption and impunity in governance in Namibia.

The other reason for the presence of kleptocratic state capture in Namibia and the country’s inability at this state to establish Zondo-style commissions is the absence of a truly independent, fearless and investigative traditional print and or electronic media. In addition, Namibia’s traditional media is highly corrupt, self-censoring and selective as well as highly-party politicized.

More than 17 reports of presidential commissions of inquiry which had been established in this country between 1992 and 1995 have never been published. Those reports have been suppressed because they expose the deep involvement of leaders and the regime in widespread corruption in the public sector.

(Letter abridged. - Editor)