LAC: Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials in Namibia
Such political scrutiny has put ruling members of government on the defensive and this has manifested itself in a dangerous way. Perhaps now, more than ever, the cult of personality surrounding SWAPO, the president and other political leaders is being carefully cultivated. Persistent statements from government representatives undermine critical commentary and gaslight the public into believing relevant concerns are overblown. There are warning signs in Namibia’s socio-political landscape that reflect previous examples oppressive, autocratic regimes. And this includes, critiques of the current administration being likened to treachery, discussions surrounding the censorship of media becoming normalised and importantly: the elevation in the presence and power of armed forces in the country. This was the aspect of focus of the LAC Booklet Launch titled “The Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials in Namibia”. Judging from how well the event was received; it appeared to resonate with the Namibian people and provided a platform for a common public worry to be appropriately discussed and explored within the background of an accessible, neutral setting.
The booklet launch took place on the 14th of February 2020 at the House of Democracy on Frans Indongo Street and was attended by just under 50 people from the general public, law enforcement and government. It was an eclectic mix of people that rarely have the opportunity to share a room and it provided a platform to discuss individual concerns and express often conflicting opinions in a truly equitable setting. The launch helped to set out a forum for public discussion and provided a reminder of what dialogue in a democracy can look like.
A solid foundation for successful debate was set by the LAC’s Dianne Hubbard whose initial overview of the publication to start the morning off was carefully considered and articulated; helping to ensure that all those in attendance understood the LAC’s intention. Her understanding of the sensitive nature of the issue was evident from the start when she prefaced her presentation by making it explicitly clear that the report was seen as a starting point for what will hopefully become a more prominent dialogue between citizens, residents and public servants. It was apparent that while the LAC felt strongly about the topic, it understood that there were better positioned organisations and government departments to take this dialogue further. Thus, the LAC made it clear that they would like to provide the relevant institutions ample breathing room with regards to law reform and that the booklet was designed to solely help bring some important talking points to the table. This self-awareness on the part of the LAC should be understood as representing the good faith in which the booklet was made. The Law Reform and Development Commission, who was represented at the event, interpreted it as such and mentioned the ongoing efforts with regards to such legal reform.
Hubbard’s explanation of the booklet highlighted the key talking points surrounding allegations of the abuse and misuse of force by Namibian police and armed forces while simultaneously offering a cross examination of Namibian legal theory concerning the legal framework used by law enforcement with several examples from other countries. This was particularly helpful in allowing people to understand what aspects of Namibian law, set out by the constitution, the Police Act of 1990, the Correctional Services Act 9 of 2012 and the Defence Act 1 of 2002, are underwhelming. It was a cohesive explanation of why holding police forces accountable for their actions in Namibia can be difficult and how best to attempt to amend the law to mitigate such issues.
Moreover, Hubbard’s concurrent description of where policing standards and key principles emanated from helped to articulate the chronological progression of law enforcement and its code of conduct in general. Ranging from Peel’s 9 Principles set out in 1829 all the way to more contemporary examples including the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules and the Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation Organisation’s (SARPCCO) Code of Conduct. Her initial presentation was effective in piquing the audience’s interest and promoting a lively, interactive discussion with fresh talking points thereafter. The debate that followed this introductory presentation was further enriched by the LAC’s concerted efforts to involve government officials and members of the armed forces. Such labors came into fruition and a range of officials came to join the discussion. This included Deputy Commissioner Nangolo, Major-General Nainda, Commissioner Mhoney and Deputy Minister of Safety and Security Daniel Kashikola. It helped ensure that the dialogue was not limited to existing within an echo chamber and that instead a diverse discussion was had with the opportunity for various individuals to voice their frustrations on the matter.
A platform for such frank discussion between the general public and public officials is a rarity and that is what made this event particularly significant. While civilians had the chance to explain their fears surrounding the increased presence of armed forces in policing operations, members of government and law enforcement officials alike had the opportunity to explain how certain instances can be misinterpreted or sensationalized by the media. It should be mentioned that while it was encouraging that such an honest critique of certain aspects of the Namibian police and armed forces could be had in the presence of officials, there was an element of tension during such discussions which Ms. Hubbard along with the HSF Country head and moderator, Dr Clemens von Doderer, helped to ease in order to make sure that this tension did not halt prospective, constructive debates.
Moreover, Hubbard’s concurrent description of where policing standards and key principles emanated from helped to articulate the chronological progression of law enforcement and its code of conduct in general. Ranging from Peel’s 9 Principles set out in 1829 all the way to more contemporary examples including the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules and the Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation Organisation’s (SARPCCO) Code of Conduct. Her initial presentation was effective in piquing the audience’s interest and promoting a lively, interactive discussion with fresh talking points thereafter. The debate that followed this introductory presentation was further enriched by the LAC’s concerted efforts to involve government officials and members of the armed forces. Such labors came into fruition and a range of officials came to join the discussion. This included Deputy Commissioner Nangolo, Major-General Nainda, Commissioner Mhoney and Deputy Minister of Safety and Security Daniel Kashikola. It helped ensure that the dialogue was not limited to existing within an echo chamber and that instead a diverse discussion was had with the opportunity for various individuals to voice their frustrations on the matter.
A platform for such frank discussion between the general public and public officials is a rarity and that is what made this event particularly significant. While civilians had the chance to explain their fears surrounding the increased presence of armed forces in policing operations, members of government and law enforcement officials alike had the opportunity to explain how certain instances can be misinterpreted or sensationalized by the media. It should be mentioned that while it was encouraging that such an honest critique of certain aspects of the Namibian police and armed forces could be had in the presence of officials, there was an element of tension during such discussions which Ms. Hubbard along with the HSF Country head and moderator, Dr Clemens von Doderer, helped to ease in order to make sure that this tension did not halt prospective, constructive debates.
The source of this tension during discussions surrounding the apparent misuse of force by law enforcement officials in Namibia, including in Operation Hornkranz and Operation Kalahari Desert, saw several of the officials on the defensive and somewhat unwilling to take responsibility for instances in which the police and/or armed forces failed to act proportionately; using violence (in some cases lethal) unnecessarily. This failure to react more usefully to criticisms that have been evidenced by a multitude of cases is slightly disconcerting, but there is hope that provided this dialogue continues to gain traction such reactions will be tempered and allow comments to be interpreted as honest critiques instead of personal attacks. Therefore, this event should not be the first and last step in establishing an open line of communication between the police and the civilians they protect and serve.
The LAC event last Friday was an example of why civil society actors in any young democracy are absolutely necessary to maintain democratic health in a country. It provided an outlet for worried members of the public to provide some accountability to police and armed forces as well as the government branches that control them. Namibia, like any country, requires a system of checks and balances to maintain democratic order within the social fabric of a country. The dialogue established during this event was constructive and provided some optimism surrounding democratic due process in the country. Peoples voices were not stifled and sufficient freedom was given to allow the public to make their point. Unfortunately, this cannot and should not be the end point for such discussions as while some people did voice honest critiques, others did not feel completely comfortable to voice their cohesive opinions for fear of repercussions. Only once such feelings of unease, induced by various public statements made by members of law enforcement, can be eradicated will democratic due process truly take hold in Namibia. This event was a hopeful starting point for what must become an extensive discussion.
Written by: Rohan Gupta (HSF Intern)