Local shooting club targets Namibian defence force

9 June 2019 · Carmel Rickard

In a bizarre case, due to be heard in the Namibian courts next week, the country’s defence force is alleged to have taken over the premises of a private shooting club outside the town of Rehoboth just before Christmas. The club says the army changed the locks and warned that the site is now off limits to the public as it is a “military zone” – all of this without notice or warning. The club is fighting back against this military might, by making an application for a spoliation order. Members say unless the dispute is heard urgently, their charitable work in the local community will be decimated and their other club activities will also be halted. The club’s officials claim that the defence force has taken the law into its own hands and that the club’s rights are being violated.

Not all Namibians received the presents they wanted this past Christmas. Members of the Rehoboth Shooters Club, for example, found an extremely unwanted and unexpected “gift” delivered to their local club just days before Christmas. That gift, courtesy of the country’s defence force, was a substantial new chain and padlock on the club’s gate. This replaced the club’s own lock, cut off and removed by the army.

Since 2004, the club has been using a site outside Rehoboth, about 90 km south of the capital Windhoek, for its activities. The local town council approved the site for the use of the club that year, and it has been in constant use by members since then.

But on 18 December 2018, John Eiman, who chairs the club, heard that members of the Namibian Defence Force had entered the grounds, removed the club’s sign and replaced it with a sign saying this was the grounds of the defence force and that entry to anyone else was barred.

A flurry of activity followed as the club members first tried to establish what was going on, then to contact the defence force for an explanation and finally, when they had no joy with the army, to find a lawyer to help them – all of this during the last days before the Christmas and New Year holidays.

Ultimately, however, they were able to put together an urgent application for a spoliation order, asking that the defence force be made to return the grounds and all the facilities on the grounds that had been donated or erected by the club.

It’s an unusual case for a number of reasons, not least because of the contrast in fire-power between the local shooting club and the might of the Namibian defence force, which gives the matter a strong David and Goliath flavour. And while the club says that the defence force has in the past approached it informally about using the site for “training purposes”, Eiman says there was no notice from the defence force about a take-over, nor were the proper processes, as laid down in the Defence Act, observed before the club was evicted.

In Eiman’s founding affidavit on behalf of the club he says the members used part of the land as a shooting range, and for this reason they fenced in the five-hectare premises and secured access to the grounds via a gate which they erected and which they kept locked with a padlock. They also installed a tank holding 2 500 litres of water, putting it on a five metre steel stand. They moved a shipping container onto the grounds to house the club’s movable assets – chairs, table, gun rests and targets for example – and roofed in part of the premises.

All this was done by the club’s members, using their own funds and their own hands. Members use the range for competitive or recreational target shooting and it has been the scene of competitions between its own members or between its members and people from other clubs. It is used almost every day, except over the year-end holiday period when many members are away.

On 18 December, as soon as Eiman was tipped off that the defence force had occupied the range, he set out with his deputy to see for himself. They found the club’s own padlock was broken off and that it had been replaced. The club’s sign was also taken down and replaced. He said that when he had been there nine days before, all was in order.

The two club officials then went to the military base outside Rehoboth where they spoke to a senior officer who said he could answer none of their questions and gave them the phone number of another officer. That number, however, was never answered.

They also tried to get answers from the town council but all the officials they needed to speak to were away on holiday. They found an acting CEO, but he said he was not aware of the “occupation of the premises” by the defence force. Next day, after the police were even less helpful when the club officials tried to ask for help, Eiman and his colleagues immediately set about looking for a lawyer to advise them – but all the firms they tried were already closed for the holidays.

Eiman said eventually he found someone to take on the case. He advised them to start by making a formal complaint to the police. That in turn resulted in a statement that Eiman attached to his founding affidavit, though nothing has come of his complaint as the relevant police officer is on leave.

The club’s lawyer has since written to the Ministry of Defence putting on record that legal action would follow if the defence force did not quit the club’s premises by 4 January – but there has been no response.

The club is anxious to get the grounds back so that members’ activities can resume. There is also concern about the safety of the club’s assets and Eiman said that if members, fed up with the continuing presence of the defence force, were to try to get into the grounds to check on their property they could face arrest, according to the notice put up by the army.

And then there is the question of the community work that the club does: its members raise considerable sums for donations to local youngsters in particular, but Eiman says if they can’t get back to normal as soon as possible, via urgent court action, their work would seriously affected and that for all these reasons they should be allowed to bring their court action on an urgent basis.

Eiman’s view is that the defence force has taken the law into its own hands and, without any court order, simply evicted the club.

The club’s legal representative, Norman Tjombe, says that after they filed papers this week relating to their spoliation order, the defence force gave notice that they would oppose the application. At this stage the case is due to be called in court on Monday 14 January.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.