Amupanda: Red line fight about dignity, not just meat
The battle over Namibia's veterinary cordon fence - commonly referred to as the red line – has taken centre stage in the Windhoek High Court, with activist Job Amupanda framing the fight as one of dignity and justice, rather than merely an issue of livestock and trade.
On Tuesday, Amupanda took the witness stand before Judge Shafimana Ueitele, recounting how his struggle against the "unconstitutional" red line was sparked by a personal experience in May 2021, when meat intended for his family in Windhoek was confiscated. Amupanda described the red line as a "political border" rooted in colonial-era discrimination, impacting over 60% of Namibia's population.
Courtroom tensions
The day began on a tense note, with clashes between judge Ueitele and Amupanda’s legal team, led by advocate Mbushandje Ntinda and assisted by Kadhila Amoomo.
Ntinda accused the defence lawyers of referring to him and Amupanda as "puppets and stooges" during an adjournment in chambers.
This prompted Amupanda’s team to file an oral application for Ueitele’s recusal, citing potential bias. However, the application was later withdrawn, with Ntinda citing their inability to proceed.
Advocate Raymond Heathcote, representing the Meat Board of Namibia, criticised Ntinda's approach, calling it "inexperienced and youthful." Judge Ueitele, showing signs of frustration, suggested Ntinda’s conduct might need referral to a higher authority or disciplinary body.
‘Outdated’ system
Under cross-examination, Amupanda emphasised that the case transcends economic concerns, asserting: "The core of this case is about dignity and the persistence of colonial-era practices, upheld by the regime that discriminates against 60% of Namibia's population."
He rejected claims that the red line was merely about regulating meat and livestock, accusing the government and its agencies of perpetuating outdated systems that marginalise northern communities.
Amupanda cited a government-commissioned study indicating that removing the red line could significantly benefit Namibia’s agricultural sector.
The report suggested that the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP), currently at 6%, could rise to 20% if farmers north of the red line gained access to broader markets.
Procedural hiccups
Tuesday’s proceedings were also marked by procedural disputes. Ntinda attempted to introduce a document as evidence, but Heathcote objected, arguing that it had not been disclosed beforehand. The judge sided with Heathcote, ruling the submission unfair and prejudicial.
As the trial continued yesterday, tensions remained high, with Ueitele and Amupanda's legal team frequently clashing.
On Tuesday, Amupanda took the witness stand before Judge Shafimana Ueitele, recounting how his struggle against the "unconstitutional" red line was sparked by a personal experience in May 2021, when meat intended for his family in Windhoek was confiscated. Amupanda described the red line as a "political border" rooted in colonial-era discrimination, impacting over 60% of Namibia's population.
Courtroom tensions
The day began on a tense note, with clashes between judge Ueitele and Amupanda’s legal team, led by advocate Mbushandje Ntinda and assisted by Kadhila Amoomo.
Ntinda accused the defence lawyers of referring to him and Amupanda as "puppets and stooges" during an adjournment in chambers.
This prompted Amupanda’s team to file an oral application for Ueitele’s recusal, citing potential bias. However, the application was later withdrawn, with Ntinda citing their inability to proceed.
Advocate Raymond Heathcote, representing the Meat Board of Namibia, criticised Ntinda's approach, calling it "inexperienced and youthful." Judge Ueitele, showing signs of frustration, suggested Ntinda’s conduct might need referral to a higher authority or disciplinary body.
‘Outdated’ system
Under cross-examination, Amupanda emphasised that the case transcends economic concerns, asserting: "The core of this case is about dignity and the persistence of colonial-era practices, upheld by the regime that discriminates against 60% of Namibia's population."
He rejected claims that the red line was merely about regulating meat and livestock, accusing the government and its agencies of perpetuating outdated systems that marginalise northern communities.
Amupanda cited a government-commissioned study indicating that removing the red line could significantly benefit Namibia’s agricultural sector.
The report suggested that the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP), currently at 6%, could rise to 20% if farmers north of the red line gained access to broader markets.
Procedural hiccups
Tuesday’s proceedings were also marked by procedural disputes. Ntinda attempted to introduce a document as evidence, but Heathcote objected, arguing that it had not been disclosed beforehand. The judge sided with Heathcote, ruling the submission unfair and prejudicial.
As the trial continued yesterday, tensions remained high, with Ueitele and Amupanda's legal team frequently clashing.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article