Improve and democratise the 5th delimitation commission
Every 10 years, our country’s constitution, in article 104, authorises the president to appoint the Boundaries Delimitation and Demarcation Commission (BDDC) with the approval of parliament.
The purpose of the BDDC, headed by a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court, and two other persons, is to delimit and demarcate the boundaries of Namibia and to recommend the determination of the boundaries and names of regions, constituencies and local authorities. This constitutional task is to be read with the Regional Council Act and Commissions Act of 1947.
We have had four BDDCs since independence. The first commission, formed in 1990, was headed by Judge Johan Strydom, with Martin Shipanga and Gerhard Tötemeyer as members. It established the 13 regions and the 95 constituencies.
The second, formed in 1998, was headed by Judge JP Karuaihe. Samuel Mbambo and Lazarus Hangula were the other members. The result of this commission was the increase of constituencies from 95 to 102. It also recommended the dropping of the ‘O’ from the name Okavango to be replaced by Kavango.
Judge Peter Shivute, Inge Murangi and Peter Kauluma, formed the third commission in 2002, which increased the number of constituencies from 102 to 107.
The fourth commission, constituted in 2013, and headed by Judge Alfred Siboleka with Dr Zed Ngavirue and Dr John Steytler, made numerous recommendations compared to the previous ones. It recommended a further increase in constituencies, from 107 to 121. The Caprivi Region was renamed Zambezi, while Karas became //Karas Region. The Kavango Region, which had lost an ‘O’ in its name in the previous commission, was split into two: Kavango East and West.
The fourth BDDC was controversial and polarised public opinion. Some were happy with the changes, while others asked more questions. For example, Lüderitz constituency was changed to ǃNamiǂNûs. Those who celebrated this change as an affirmation of local language and culture still faced questions with regard to the town of Lüderitz, which kept the name it got from the German merchant Adolf Lüderitz. It was scandalous. While Kavango was split into two, requests for an additional region in Oshikoto or changing the boundaries of Oshana and Oshikoto were ignored.
At the time, organised civil society called for the release of the BDDC report in order to understand the announcements that were made by the then President Hifikepunye Pohamba. This request was turned down.
The 5th BDDC is due in a few months. Will this be another case of controversy, dropping of letters and an increase in the number of constituencies? There is a need for a conversation on what we wish to see with the 5th BDDC.
There are several things that previous commissions have ignored. The constitution permits the commission to recommend changes to the names of local authorities. This has not happened with past commissions. Only regions and constituencies have changed their names.
An aspect that has been ignored is the presence of constituencies within local authorities. In Windhoek alone, there are 10 constituencies. There is very little that these regional councillors do within a local authority area. The Oshakati local authority area has two constituencies; Oshakati West and East. Oranjemund is together with Rosh Pinah. Ondangwa has urban and rural areas. Ongwediva doesn’t have urban or rural, only one constituency. Examples are many. These variations are without a scientific basis. It is simple – there should be no regional councillors within local authority areas. If we do away with this practice, it is possible that the number of constituencies will be less than 100.
The 5th BDDC must enable the real prospects of saving unnecessary costs for much needed national development priorities.
More importantly, there is a need to democratise the work of BDDC. Chief amongst these is making the BDDC report available to the public for transparency and national understanding. Our parliament is in the process of passing the access to information law. In 2013, when President Pohamba’s administration refused to release the 4th BDDC report, there was no access to information bill before parliament. Things have changed, and so should the BDDC reports.
*Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter
The purpose of the BDDC, headed by a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court, and two other persons, is to delimit and demarcate the boundaries of Namibia and to recommend the determination of the boundaries and names of regions, constituencies and local authorities. This constitutional task is to be read with the Regional Council Act and Commissions Act of 1947.
We have had four BDDCs since independence. The first commission, formed in 1990, was headed by Judge Johan Strydom, with Martin Shipanga and Gerhard Tötemeyer as members. It established the 13 regions and the 95 constituencies.
The second, formed in 1998, was headed by Judge JP Karuaihe. Samuel Mbambo and Lazarus Hangula were the other members. The result of this commission was the increase of constituencies from 95 to 102. It also recommended the dropping of the ‘O’ from the name Okavango to be replaced by Kavango.
Judge Peter Shivute, Inge Murangi and Peter Kauluma, formed the third commission in 2002, which increased the number of constituencies from 102 to 107.
The fourth commission, constituted in 2013, and headed by Judge Alfred Siboleka with Dr Zed Ngavirue and Dr John Steytler, made numerous recommendations compared to the previous ones. It recommended a further increase in constituencies, from 107 to 121. The Caprivi Region was renamed Zambezi, while Karas became //Karas Region. The Kavango Region, which had lost an ‘O’ in its name in the previous commission, was split into two: Kavango East and West.
The fourth BDDC was controversial and polarised public opinion. Some were happy with the changes, while others asked more questions. For example, Lüderitz constituency was changed to ǃNamiǂNûs. Those who celebrated this change as an affirmation of local language and culture still faced questions with regard to the town of Lüderitz, which kept the name it got from the German merchant Adolf Lüderitz. It was scandalous. While Kavango was split into two, requests for an additional region in Oshikoto or changing the boundaries of Oshana and Oshikoto were ignored.
At the time, organised civil society called for the release of the BDDC report in order to understand the announcements that were made by the then President Hifikepunye Pohamba. This request was turned down.
The 5th BDDC is due in a few months. Will this be another case of controversy, dropping of letters and an increase in the number of constituencies? There is a need for a conversation on what we wish to see with the 5th BDDC.
There are several things that previous commissions have ignored. The constitution permits the commission to recommend changes to the names of local authorities. This has not happened with past commissions. Only regions and constituencies have changed their names.
An aspect that has been ignored is the presence of constituencies within local authorities. In Windhoek alone, there are 10 constituencies. There is very little that these regional councillors do within a local authority area. The Oshakati local authority area has two constituencies; Oshakati West and East. Oranjemund is together with Rosh Pinah. Ondangwa has urban and rural areas. Ongwediva doesn’t have urban or rural, only one constituency. Examples are many. These variations are without a scientific basis. It is simple – there should be no regional councillors within local authority areas. If we do away with this practice, it is possible that the number of constituencies will be less than 100.
The 5th BDDC must enable the real prospects of saving unnecessary costs for much needed national development priorities.
More importantly, there is a need to democratise the work of BDDC. Chief amongst these is making the BDDC report available to the public for transparency and national understanding. Our parliament is in the process of passing the access to information law. In 2013, when President Pohamba’s administration refused to release the 4th BDDC report, there was no access to information bill before parliament. Things have changed, and so should the BDDC reports.
*Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article