Ombudsman bill temporarily withdrawn
The Ombudsman Bill has been temporarily withdrawn by justice minister Yvonne Dausab, following concerns raised by several members of parliament (MPs). The bill, which aims to strengthen the legal framework governing the Office of the Ombudsman, faced criticism on various issues, including its naming, appointment procedures, and the independence of the office.
MP Elma Dienda argued that the term “ombudsman” is sexist and proposed changing it to “public protector.” She also raised concerns about the appointment of the ombudsman and their deputy by the president, suggesting that this could compromise their independence.
Maria Elago questioned the requirement for the deputy ombudsman to also serve as a sitting judge, highlighting potential conflicts in managing both roles effectively. She also pointed out that the bill restricts external remuneration, which would prevent a judge from being compensated for their judicial duties.
Veikko Nekundi cautioned against blindly accepting the bill without fully understanding its implications.
Dausab originally presented the bill on 19 February, stating that it is crucial for ensuring the full independence of the Ombudsman’s office. While the existing Ombudsman Act of 1990 has been in place for over 30 years, she argued that its limitations hinder resource access and investigative readiness.
The proposed bill seeks to grant administrative and financial independence to the Ombudsman’s office, similar to the Office of the Judiciary, which has operated independently since 2015. It also introduces enforcement measures, an executive director position, and a dedicated budget.
Despite the temporary withdrawal, Dausab emphasised that Namibia continues to improve its human rights protections, though challenges such as access to justice and socio-economic inequalities persist. She stressed that strong institutions, adequate resources, and accountability are essential for enforcing human rights effectively.
She reiterated that the Ombudsman’s ability to function efficiently is crucial, as it serves as a vital institution for justice and public trust.
MP Elma Dienda argued that the term “ombudsman” is sexist and proposed changing it to “public protector.” She also raised concerns about the appointment of the ombudsman and their deputy by the president, suggesting that this could compromise their independence.
Maria Elago questioned the requirement for the deputy ombudsman to also serve as a sitting judge, highlighting potential conflicts in managing both roles effectively. She also pointed out that the bill restricts external remuneration, which would prevent a judge from being compensated for their judicial duties.
Veikko Nekundi cautioned against blindly accepting the bill without fully understanding its implications.
Dausab originally presented the bill on 19 February, stating that it is crucial for ensuring the full independence of the Ombudsman’s office. While the existing Ombudsman Act of 1990 has been in place for over 30 years, she argued that its limitations hinder resource access and investigative readiness.
The proposed bill seeks to grant administrative and financial independence to the Ombudsman’s office, similar to the Office of the Judiciary, which has operated independently since 2015. It also introduces enforcement measures, an executive director position, and a dedicated budget.
Despite the temporary withdrawal, Dausab emphasised that Namibia continues to improve its human rights protections, though challenges such as access to justice and socio-economic inequalities persist. She stressed that strong institutions, adequate resources, and accountability are essential for enforcing human rights effectively.
She reiterated that the Ombudsman’s ability to function efficiently is crucial, as it serves as a vital institution for justice and public trust.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article