State appeals Amupanda’s cost order in red line case
Hearing on red line case set for January
The High Court ruled last month that Job Amupanda will not have to pay legal costs, even if his application fails.
The State is appealing the court's decision to issue an order protecting Affirmative Repositioning leader Job Amupanda from costs in his legal battle to have the veterinary cordon fence, also known as the red line, removed.
On 25 October, the High Court in Windhoek granted Amupanda's application for a protective cost order, ruling that he would not have to pay legal costs if he loses the case concerning the red line.
Orders of this nature are issued when an individual can demonstrate limited financial resources to pursue a court case deemed to be in the public interest.
Judge Shafimana Ueitele found that Amupanda's application regarding the Red Line is in the public interest.
In its appeal, however, the State argues that Ueitele ruled in Amupanda’s favour after concluding that the government has greater financial resources at its disposal, allegedly without determining the government’s actual financial position.
Ueitele has already granted the State leave to appeal, and they will therefore challenge this order in the Supreme Court.
Application
In May 2022, Amupanda took the environment ministry to court, seeking an order to have the fence removed and declared unlawful and unconstitutional.
In his amended claim, the activist stated that the red line was erected to act as a barrier, isolating individuals and their livestock living south of the fence from perceived or actual diseases originating from people and livestock north of the red line.
He argued that this protection and isolation are not extended to people and livestock living north of the red line, describing that as discriminatory.
Amupanda further claimed that the fence continues to be used to “control the movement of animals and black people from the north to the south of Namibia.”
According to him, the red line, as a colonial structure, is unconstitutional because it was established to achieve colonial objectives.
The government respondents argue that it would be in the public interest to gradually extend the area south of the fence – which is free of foot-and-mouth disease – into the communal areas north of the fence. They contend that this should be done in a way that does not jeopardise Namibia's status with the World Organisation for Animal Health as a country with foot-and-mouth disease-free zones.
The respondents assert that it would not be prudent to suddenly remove the fence.
The judge set down the date for the hearing of the matter as 20 to 31 January 2025.
– [email protected]
On 25 October, the High Court in Windhoek granted Amupanda's application for a protective cost order, ruling that he would not have to pay legal costs if he loses the case concerning the red line.
Orders of this nature are issued when an individual can demonstrate limited financial resources to pursue a court case deemed to be in the public interest.
Judge Shafimana Ueitele found that Amupanda's application regarding the Red Line is in the public interest.
In its appeal, however, the State argues that Ueitele ruled in Amupanda’s favour after concluding that the government has greater financial resources at its disposal, allegedly without determining the government’s actual financial position.
Ueitele has already granted the State leave to appeal, and they will therefore challenge this order in the Supreme Court.
Application
In May 2022, Amupanda took the environment ministry to court, seeking an order to have the fence removed and declared unlawful and unconstitutional.
In his amended claim, the activist stated that the red line was erected to act as a barrier, isolating individuals and their livestock living south of the fence from perceived or actual diseases originating from people and livestock north of the red line.
He argued that this protection and isolation are not extended to people and livestock living north of the red line, describing that as discriminatory.
Amupanda further claimed that the fence continues to be used to “control the movement of animals and black people from the north to the south of Namibia.”
According to him, the red line, as a colonial structure, is unconstitutional because it was established to achieve colonial objectives.
The government respondents argue that it would be in the public interest to gradually extend the area south of the fence – which is free of foot-and-mouth disease – into the communal areas north of the fence. They contend that this should be done in a way that does not jeopardise Namibia's status with the World Organisation for Animal Health as a country with foot-and-mouth disease-free zones.
The respondents assert that it would not be prudent to suddenly remove the fence.
The judge set down the date for the hearing of the matter as 20 to 31 January 2025.
– [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article