(MISA/IFEX) – Earlier this week, police warned the editors of English daily “The Namibian” and Afrikaans daily “Republikein 2000”, and the Society of Advocates, that it is investigating all three institutions for possible charges of contempt of court in relation to critical comments made by them in November and December 2000. According to a Friday, […]
(MISA/IFEX) – Earlier this week, police warned the editors of English daily “The Namibian” and Afrikaans daily “Republikein 2000”, and the Society of Advocates, that it is investigating all three institutions for possible charges of contempt of court in relation to critical comments made by them in November and December 2000.
According to a Friday, 16 March 2001 report in “The Namibian”, the police investigation of the two newspapers and the Society of Advocates follows a request submitted by Judge President Pio Teek to the Prosecutor General’s Office in January.
Teek asked that a case of contempt of court be investigated against the two newspapers and the Society due to critical comments made about his refusal to direct Government and Home Affairs Minister Jerry Ekandjo to comply with a month-old court order for Jose Domingos Sikunda’s immediate release from detention.
Gwen Lister, editor of “The Namibian”, provided a statement to the Police in which she denied having committed contempt when she wrote a 1 December editorial which irked Teek. Lister is reported to have said that the newspaper was simply exercising its rights to freedom of speech and of the media. Reasonable criticism of court judgements do not constitute contempt of court, she said in her statement.
Chris Jacobie, editor of “Republikein 2000”, confirmed that he had declined to make a statement about the case. In his opinion, he did not commit any offence.
On Friday 9 March, Prosecutor General Hans Heyman said that he was still waiting for the police to report the outcome of their investigation before he would decide whether or not to charge anyone with contempt of court.
Teek sent the request to Heyman for a contempt of court case to be investigated after he withdrew from two High Court cases that dealt with the government’s plan to deport former UNITA representative Sikunda as a prohibited immigrant, and an application to have Ekandjo convicted of contempt of court for refusing to carry out the court order against Sikunda.
Sylvester Mainga and Elton Hoff, the two judges who took over the case, subsequently convicted Ekandjo of contempt. Sikunda was then released, with the two judges still set to rule on whether or not his planned deportation should be stopped.
Teek withdrew from the cases after charging that the critical editorial comments printed in the newspapers and in a Society of Advocates media statement were such “gross interference” with the independence of the judiciary that it could have left his eventual judgement in the case irreparably tainted. The published articles dealt with Teek’s decision not to reiterate a High Court order from 24 October 2000 that called for Sikunda’s immediate release.
BACKGROUND:
The Bar Council criticised Teek’s refusal to comply with the court order, saying it amounted to a travesty of justice and seriously undermined the rule of law and constitutional governance in Namibia.
In a 1 December editorial, “The Namibian” called for a speedy judgement in the Sikunda cases. The paper said Teek’s refusal appeared to contribute to the erosion of both the constitution and the rule of law.
On 4 December, “Republikein 2000” wrote: “It is not hard to be in contempt of a court which itself is in contempt of its own orders. It is actually impossible. Especially when advocates claim in public that the Judge President’s actions undermine constitutional government in Namibia”.
The Law Society of Namibia said that whatever the reasons given by Teek, they “cannot justify the delay in implementing the court order”.
Teek accused the Bar Council and the two newspapers of “the highest order of gross interference and intimidation in Namibian legal history.” He claimed his critics had pre-judged his ruling and had dictated what he should have done.
