Ueitele under scrutiny over Schlettwein tax exemption
Amupanda files complaint with JSC
The judge, who owns at least two farms and presides over the red line case, allegedly received a land tax exemption from the agriculture minister, the first respondent in the matter.
High Court judge Shafimana Ueitele’s professionalism and objectivity in the red line court case have come under intense scrutiny following revelations that the first applicant in the matter – agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein –granted him a land tax exemption in August 2024 while the case was still before him.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) leader Job Amupanda, who is challenging the legality of the veterinary cordon fence, formally known as the red line, has lodged a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) regarding Ueitele’s conduct. This follows Ueitele’s refusal to recuse himself from the case despite a motion filed by Amupanda’s legal team.
Documents from the agriculture ministry reveal that Ueitele was granted a land tax exemption on two farms – Farm 938 (Portion 1 of Woseley), measuring 1 732 hectares, and Farm 933, covering 4 867 hectares – on 6 August 2024, shortly before the trial commenced.
“This is unacceptable. While the case was before him and just before the 1896 red line case went to trial, minister Calle Schlettwein, who is a defendant in the case, granted judge Shafimana Ueitele a tax exemption on his farms,” Amupanda claimed in a social media post, accompanied by documentary proof.
Amupanda further alleged that Ueitele has connections with key defendants in the case, including the Meat Board of Namibia and the Namibia Agricultural Union, casting doubt on the judge's ability to remain impartial.
“If this is how our judiciary operates, then I fear we don’t have a judiciary at all. Everything, sadly, makes sense now,” he added.
Recusal application rejected
In his complaint affidavit to the JSC, Amupanda detailed Ueitele’s alleged refusal to consider the recusal motion fairly.
“On the morning of 21 January 2025, following a meeting in chambers between my legal practitioners and the judge, I was informed of concerning remarks made by the judge. I requested my legal team to file a recusal application. However, when they sought permission to file supporting affidavits, the judge refused and instead demanded that I testify under oath immediately,” Amupanda stated.
“My legal team explained that the nature of the recusal application required sworn affidavits from both the instructing and instructed practitioners. The judge dismissed this and ordered them to testify instead.”
According to Amupanda, Ueitele then directed that both his lawyers take the stand and that he seek new legal representation to commence the application at 14:15 on the same day, despite it being almost midday by then.
Exemption details
A ministry document seen by Namibian Sun confirms that Ueitele was among landowners exempted from paying land tax. The exemption covered Farm 938, which had a tax assessment of N$1 850, and Farm 933, assessed at N$5 198.40. The farms are situated south of the red line, giving them access to lucrative markets that farmers north of the fence are unable to export to.
Schlettwein, under Section 76B of the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act, 1995 (Act No. 6 of 1995), exempted Ueitele and other landowners from land tax payments for the financial years 2016/2017, 2018/2019, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022.
Judicial conduct under fire
Ueitele’s conduct during the trial has been criticised, with claims that he took an adversarial stance against Amupanda’s lawyer, advocate Mbushandje Ntinda.
At one point, Ueitele reportedly questioned where Ntinda obtained his law qualifications, leading to an emotional exchange. The judge later apologised for the remark.
Amupanda remains firm in his pursuit of justice: “We have officially submitted a complaint against Justice Shafimana Ueitele regarding his conduct in court. He insulted a legal practitioner and later apologised, but this is not just about an apology – what about the damage already done?”
“Our concern is that this case must be adjudicated fairly and justly. The outcome should be one that all parties can accept, knowing that the process was conducted with integrity.”
Regarding potential appeals, Amupanda stated: “Matters concerning the Supreme Court remain within its jurisdiction, and my lawyers will handle those. However, the conduct of a judicial officer is a separate matter under the purview of the JSC. Let’s wait and hear what the JSC has to say.”
Ueitele is set to deliver his judgment in the red line case on 27 March.
Questions sent to the Office of the Judiciary regarding Ueitele’s alleged conduct had not been answered by the time of publication. Schlettwein also did not respond to text messages seeking comment.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) leader Job Amupanda, who is challenging the legality of the veterinary cordon fence, formally known as the red line, has lodged a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) regarding Ueitele’s conduct. This follows Ueitele’s refusal to recuse himself from the case despite a motion filed by Amupanda’s legal team.
Documents from the agriculture ministry reveal that Ueitele was granted a land tax exemption on two farms – Farm 938 (Portion 1 of Woseley), measuring 1 732 hectares, and Farm 933, covering 4 867 hectares – on 6 August 2024, shortly before the trial commenced.
“This is unacceptable. While the case was before him and just before the 1896 red line case went to trial, minister Calle Schlettwein, who is a defendant in the case, granted judge Shafimana Ueitele a tax exemption on his farms,” Amupanda claimed in a social media post, accompanied by documentary proof.
Amupanda further alleged that Ueitele has connections with key defendants in the case, including the Meat Board of Namibia and the Namibia Agricultural Union, casting doubt on the judge's ability to remain impartial.
“If this is how our judiciary operates, then I fear we don’t have a judiciary at all. Everything, sadly, makes sense now,” he added.
Recusal application rejected
In his complaint affidavit to the JSC, Amupanda detailed Ueitele’s alleged refusal to consider the recusal motion fairly.
“On the morning of 21 January 2025, following a meeting in chambers between my legal practitioners and the judge, I was informed of concerning remarks made by the judge. I requested my legal team to file a recusal application. However, when they sought permission to file supporting affidavits, the judge refused and instead demanded that I testify under oath immediately,” Amupanda stated.
“My legal team explained that the nature of the recusal application required sworn affidavits from both the instructing and instructed practitioners. The judge dismissed this and ordered them to testify instead.”
According to Amupanda, Ueitele then directed that both his lawyers take the stand and that he seek new legal representation to commence the application at 14:15 on the same day, despite it being almost midday by then.
Exemption details
A ministry document seen by Namibian Sun confirms that Ueitele was among landowners exempted from paying land tax. The exemption covered Farm 938, which had a tax assessment of N$1 850, and Farm 933, assessed at N$5 198.40. The farms are situated south of the red line, giving them access to lucrative markets that farmers north of the fence are unable to export to.
Schlettwein, under Section 76B of the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act, 1995 (Act No. 6 of 1995), exempted Ueitele and other landowners from land tax payments for the financial years 2016/2017, 2018/2019, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022.
Judicial conduct under fire
Ueitele’s conduct during the trial has been criticised, with claims that he took an adversarial stance against Amupanda’s lawyer, advocate Mbushandje Ntinda.
At one point, Ueitele reportedly questioned where Ntinda obtained his law qualifications, leading to an emotional exchange. The judge later apologised for the remark.
Amupanda remains firm in his pursuit of justice: “We have officially submitted a complaint against Justice Shafimana Ueitele regarding his conduct in court. He insulted a legal practitioner and later apologised, but this is not just about an apology – what about the damage already done?”
“Our concern is that this case must be adjudicated fairly and justly. The outcome should be one that all parties can accept, knowing that the process was conducted with integrity.”
Regarding potential appeals, Amupanda stated: “Matters concerning the Supreme Court remain within its jurisdiction, and my lawyers will handle those. However, the conduct of a judicial officer is a separate matter under the purview of the JSC. Let’s wait and hear what the JSC has to say.”
Ueitele is set to deliver his judgment in the red line case on 27 March.
Questions sent to the Office of the Judiciary regarding Ueitele’s alleged conduct had not been answered by the time of publication. Schlettwein also did not respond to text messages seeking comment.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article