Ueitele: I was open about owning farm south of red line
High Court judge Shafimana Ueitele yesterday said he has always been completely transparent with activist Job Amupanda – whose application for the removal of the veterinary cordon fence he dismissed – about owning a commercial farm south of that fence.
The judge yesterday dismissed Amupanda’s application to remove the fence, a decision that has sparked widespread discussion about potential conflicts of interest, especially given that the first respondent in the case, former agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, had previously granted Ueitele a land tax exemption.
The judge’s decision to preside over a case that could impact his farming business became a contentious issue during court proceedings. Ueitele maintained that he was forthright with all parties involved, granting them the opportunity to voice any objections regarding his role in the case.
“After I disclosed my ownership of a commercial farm, I gave the parties – on three separate occasions – the opportunity to decide whether they were comfortable with me presiding over the matter,” he said.
“I further indicated that should any party feel uncomfortable, I was willing to recuse myself without requiring a formal recusal application. All parties expressed their confidence in my objectivity and impartiality and agreed that I should proceed.”
While Ueitele did not deny receiving a land tax exemption from Schlettwein, he suggested that Amupanda deliberately omitted the legal context behind this exemption.
“Mr Amupanda, in his social media posts and allegations, claims that I was exempted from paying land tax by Minister Calle Schlettwein but fails to inform his readers that this exemption was granted under the Agricultural Commercial Land Reform Act, 1995 (Act 6 of 1995), as amended. This Act empowers the minister of agriculture to impose and implement land tax on all agricultural commercial land in Namibia.”
The judge also refuted claims that he owned multiple farms. “I do not have farms. I own a single farm located south of the red line,” he clarified.
Judge's reasoning
After addressing these personal concerns, Ueitele proceeded to dismiss Amupanda’s five-year legal battle, in which the activist sought to compel the government to remove the veterinary cordon fence, arguing that it was discriminatory.
The case originated from an incident where Amupanda claimed he faced discrimination when attempting to transport raw meat across the red line. Current regulations prohibit northern farmers from doing so, as the region is classified as a foot-and-mouth disease zone.
Amupanda took the agriculture ministry to court, arguing that the fence unfairly restricted northern farmers while allowing their southern counterparts greater economic freedom. However, Ueitele ruled that Amupanda and his legal team failed to convincingly substantiate their claims.
“Amupanda simply argued that people in the north are treated differently from those in the south. I find this reasoning weak, inconsistent and unreliable,” Ueitele said in his judgment.
Not the end of the road
During the trial, Amupanda repeatedly expressed frustration with Ueitele’s approach to the proceedings and contemplated filing an application for the judge’s recusal. Ultimately, he did not proceed with the request. Ueitele, however, maintained that judicial recusal requires proof of bias or a conflict of interest – something he argued Amupanda had failed to establish.
“I cannot depose an affidavit to the allegations made against me. I will thus only interrogate the allegation in the context of the requirements imposed on Mr Amupanda, who alleges an apprehension of bias,” Ueitele noted.
Following the ruling, Amupanda expressed his dissatisfaction, calling it a “miscarriage of justice".
He announced plans to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court.
“This ruling is not surprising. There was no real trial – just a rehearsal between nine defendants. We are moving forward to the Supreme Court,” he confirmed.
Criticising the judgment, Amupanda added: “The entire ruling focuses on social media, the judge’s farm, and personal matters rather than the core legal issues.”
“I didn’t even listen much. It was very difficult to sit through. We are definitely appealing. This is far from the end of the case.”
The judge yesterday dismissed Amupanda’s application to remove the fence, a decision that has sparked widespread discussion about potential conflicts of interest, especially given that the first respondent in the case, former agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, had previously granted Ueitele a land tax exemption.
The judge’s decision to preside over a case that could impact his farming business became a contentious issue during court proceedings. Ueitele maintained that he was forthright with all parties involved, granting them the opportunity to voice any objections regarding his role in the case.
“After I disclosed my ownership of a commercial farm, I gave the parties – on three separate occasions – the opportunity to decide whether they were comfortable with me presiding over the matter,” he said.
“I further indicated that should any party feel uncomfortable, I was willing to recuse myself without requiring a formal recusal application. All parties expressed their confidence in my objectivity and impartiality and agreed that I should proceed.”
While Ueitele did not deny receiving a land tax exemption from Schlettwein, he suggested that Amupanda deliberately omitted the legal context behind this exemption.
“Mr Amupanda, in his social media posts and allegations, claims that I was exempted from paying land tax by Minister Calle Schlettwein but fails to inform his readers that this exemption was granted under the Agricultural Commercial Land Reform Act, 1995 (Act 6 of 1995), as amended. This Act empowers the minister of agriculture to impose and implement land tax on all agricultural commercial land in Namibia.”
The judge also refuted claims that he owned multiple farms. “I do not have farms. I own a single farm located south of the red line,” he clarified.
Judge's reasoning
After addressing these personal concerns, Ueitele proceeded to dismiss Amupanda’s five-year legal battle, in which the activist sought to compel the government to remove the veterinary cordon fence, arguing that it was discriminatory.
The case originated from an incident where Amupanda claimed he faced discrimination when attempting to transport raw meat across the red line. Current regulations prohibit northern farmers from doing so, as the region is classified as a foot-and-mouth disease zone.
Amupanda took the agriculture ministry to court, arguing that the fence unfairly restricted northern farmers while allowing their southern counterparts greater economic freedom. However, Ueitele ruled that Amupanda and his legal team failed to convincingly substantiate their claims.
“Amupanda simply argued that people in the north are treated differently from those in the south. I find this reasoning weak, inconsistent and unreliable,” Ueitele said in his judgment.
Not the end of the road
During the trial, Amupanda repeatedly expressed frustration with Ueitele’s approach to the proceedings and contemplated filing an application for the judge’s recusal. Ultimately, he did not proceed with the request. Ueitele, however, maintained that judicial recusal requires proof of bias or a conflict of interest – something he argued Amupanda had failed to establish.
“I cannot depose an affidavit to the allegations made against me. I will thus only interrogate the allegation in the context of the requirements imposed on Mr Amupanda, who alleges an apprehension of bias,” Ueitele noted.
Following the ruling, Amupanda expressed his dissatisfaction, calling it a “miscarriage of justice".
He announced plans to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court.
“This ruling is not surprising. There was no real trial – just a rehearsal between nine defendants. We are moving forward to the Supreme Court,” he confirmed.
Criticising the judgment, Amupanda added: “The entire ruling focuses on social media, the judge’s farm, and personal matters rather than the core legal issues.”
“I didn’t even listen much. It was very difficult to sit through. We are definitely appealing. This is far from the end of the case.”
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article