Red line defendants’ plea for nonjoinder under discussion
Back and forth continues
Amupanda has called the policies and administrative action surrounding the veterinary cordon fence "flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian".
Parties involved in a court case on the removal of the veterinary cordon fence (VCF) are still in discussions about the defendants’ special plea of nonjoinder to the High Court.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) activist Job Amupanda filed the case on 26 May 2021, seeking a court order to have the fence – also known as the ‘red line’ - removed and declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He listed agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, the government, Attorney-General Festus Mbandeka and an official in the directorate of veterinary services, Hango Nambinga, as defendants in the matter.
The Meat Board of Namibia was later added as a defendant after it asked for leave to intervene.
The first four defendants earlier this year asked the court to issue an order for the owners or occupiers of land on which the VCF has been erected to be joined as defendants to the case as well.
A special plea of nonjoinder may be raised where a party who should have been added to a case as not been joined to the action.
They also asked that all commercial and communal farmers farming on land south of the fence as well as the owners and/or occupiers of land in the foot-and-mouth disease surveillance zone, between the game-proof fence and the stock-proof fence, be joined to the case.
Furthermore, they asked the court to also order Amupanda to pay their costs relating to the adjudication of their special plea of nonjoinder.
If the nonjoinder does not take place, the claims by Amupanda should be dismissed with costs, they added.
The way forward
Amupanda, however, rejected the special plea of nonjoinder and the court ordered the parties’ legal practitioners to hold a conference meeting to discuss and address the defendants’ plea, amongst other issues.
It was agreed that the defendants had to provide Amupanda’s lawyer with legal contentions by way of a memorandum by last week for their consideration, and that they would then reply by today, 19 July, with proposals regarding the way forward.
In its plea, The Meat Board pointed out that the prevention and control of stock diseases are of vital importance in the world and that Namibia is no exception.
“It secures beef production, which contributes approximately N$7.3 billion to the Namibian gross domestic product (GDP).
The removal of the VCF, it estimated, would result in the loss of earnings for secondary industries dependent on the stock industry of approximately N$620 million per year, and the loss of export earnings of primary industries dependent on the stock industry of N$841 million per year.
In his amended particular of claims, Amupanda said the policy and administrative action to erect and subsequently retain the VCF are flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian.
The defendants denied these allegations and said Amupanda - through these proceedings – is abusing the court for the ulterior purpose of scoring a political advantage.
Colonial structure
Amupanda added that the VCF, as a “colonial structure”, is unconstitutional on the basis that it was erected to achieve colonial aims and objectives.
“It is not sanctioned or made provision for by any law in Namibia. It is not rationally connected to any purposes. People who are from northern origins are not treated the same as those from southern origins.”
The fence, he said, was erected to act as a shield and to insulate persons who reside south of the fence and their livestock from perceived or actual diseases which emanate from people who reside north of the red line and their livestock.
He said this protection and insulation are not accorded to people who reside north of the red line and their livestock. This is discriminatory, he argued.
The defendants denied that the differentiation highlighted by Amupanda is discriminatory, irrational, unreasonable or unfair.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) activist Job Amupanda filed the case on 26 May 2021, seeking a court order to have the fence – also known as the ‘red line’ - removed and declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He listed agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, the government, Attorney-General Festus Mbandeka and an official in the directorate of veterinary services, Hango Nambinga, as defendants in the matter.
The Meat Board of Namibia was later added as a defendant after it asked for leave to intervene.
The first four defendants earlier this year asked the court to issue an order for the owners or occupiers of land on which the VCF has been erected to be joined as defendants to the case as well.
A special plea of nonjoinder may be raised where a party who should have been added to a case as not been joined to the action.
They also asked that all commercial and communal farmers farming on land south of the fence as well as the owners and/or occupiers of land in the foot-and-mouth disease surveillance zone, between the game-proof fence and the stock-proof fence, be joined to the case.
Furthermore, they asked the court to also order Amupanda to pay their costs relating to the adjudication of their special plea of nonjoinder.
If the nonjoinder does not take place, the claims by Amupanda should be dismissed with costs, they added.
The way forward
Amupanda, however, rejected the special plea of nonjoinder and the court ordered the parties’ legal practitioners to hold a conference meeting to discuss and address the defendants’ plea, amongst other issues.
It was agreed that the defendants had to provide Amupanda’s lawyer with legal contentions by way of a memorandum by last week for their consideration, and that they would then reply by today, 19 July, with proposals regarding the way forward.
In its plea, The Meat Board pointed out that the prevention and control of stock diseases are of vital importance in the world and that Namibia is no exception.
“It secures beef production, which contributes approximately N$7.3 billion to the Namibian gross domestic product (GDP).
The removal of the VCF, it estimated, would result in the loss of earnings for secondary industries dependent on the stock industry of approximately N$620 million per year, and the loss of export earnings of primary industries dependent on the stock industry of N$841 million per year.
In his amended particular of claims, Amupanda said the policy and administrative action to erect and subsequently retain the VCF are flagrant, brazen, brutal, shameful and draconian.
The defendants denied these allegations and said Amupanda - through these proceedings – is abusing the court for the ulterior purpose of scoring a political advantage.
Colonial structure
Amupanda added that the VCF, as a “colonial structure”, is unconstitutional on the basis that it was erected to achieve colonial aims and objectives.
“It is not sanctioned or made provision for by any law in Namibia. It is not rationally connected to any purposes. People who are from northern origins are not treated the same as those from southern origins.”
The fence, he said, was erected to act as a shield and to insulate persons who reside south of the fence and their livestock from perceived or actual diseases which emanate from people who reside north of the red line and their livestock.
He said this protection and insulation are not accorded to people who reside north of the red line and their livestock. This is discriminatory, he argued.
The defendants denied that the differentiation highlighted by Amupanda is discriminatory, irrational, unreasonable or unfair.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article