THE decision by the National Assembly (NA) to approve the reappointment of Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) director general Paulus Noa and his deputy, Erna van der Merwe, for five years will remain in force after opposition parties failed in their bid to overturn a parliamentary session at which the decision was taken.
Seven opposition parties last month took NA speaker Peter Katjavivi to the High Court on an urgent basis to challenge the process followed to convene a special session of the NA on 29 July, which considered and approved the nomination of Noa and his deputy by president Hage Geingob for another five-year term.
The session of 29 July also approved the nomination of the chairperson of the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) Elsie Nghikembua, and Emmerentia Leonard and Joram Rukambe as ECN commissioners.
The seven parties disputing these decisions include the Popular Democratic Movement (PDM), All People’s Party, the Rally for Democracy and Progress, the Republican Party, the National Unity Democratic Organisation, the Namibia Economic Freedom Fighters, and the South West Africa National Union.
The parties are arguing that the disputed parliamentary session convened on 29 July, which followed the two-day-long urgent sitting called by president Hage Geingob by way of a proclamation, was illegally constituted and therefore null and void.
The parties therefore wanted the High Court to declare null and void Katjavivi’s decision to convene the parliamentary session of 29 July and proclamation number 42 issued by the president on 29 July, to amend an initial proclamation (number 38) which had called for an initial special session of the NA to be convened.
The parties argue that proclamation number 42 was inconsistent with Article 1(1) of the Constitution, among others, and is therefore “contrary to law, unconstitutional and invalid”.
They also wanted the High Court to direct the president to directly issue a new proclamation to request another special session of the NA to reconsider Noa and Van de Merwe’s reappointment, as well as the approval of the new chairperson and commissioners of the ECN.
‘NOT URGENT’
However, after postponing the matter for almost three weeks, acting High Court judge Collins Parker yesterday ruled that the case against Noa’s reappointment was not urgent.
Parker argued that although the parties satisfied the requirement of the court guiding urgent cases, they failed to “explicitly” state the reasons why they claim they would not be “afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course”.
“I note that in the instant matter, allegations of constitutional conduct are made seriously and therefore concerns of rule of law are raised and further that applicants approach the court with speed and promptitude, considering the prevailing circumstances at the relevant time . . . In my view, considering the principal relief in the form of a declaration and the consequential relief thereof, I fail to see how one can seriously claim that they cannot be afforded a substantial redress at a hearing in due course if the matter was heard in due course,” Parker’s judgement reads.
He added that: “Irrespective of the importance – real or assumed – of the subject matter of an application, the applicant can only succeed to have his or her application heard on the grounds that it is urgent only, and only if the applicant satisfied both requirements of urgency prescribed by the rule of the court.”
Shortly after the judgement, PDM leader McHenry Venaani said the aggrieved parties would pursue the case “to its logical conclusion”.
He said the parties would meet today to determine the way forward.
Source: