Niël Terblanché
By importing horizontally, foreign Common Law Principles from abroad, the Supreme Court of Namibia seriously undermined the sovereignty of the country’s judicial system and made it subordinate to a foreign commonwealth country’s court, in a common law jurisdiction, the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) said.
The Independent Patriots for Change says it will support the Proclamation of a National Referendum as the only legitimate superior act of the Sovereign in which the people of Namibia may exercise their authority in which “All power” is vested.
In a statement, the IPC said that a referendum is the only possible avenue to seek to overturn the judgement, which recognizes same-sex marriage concluded outside the borders of Namibia.
“This is given the pronouncement of their Lordships against the principles of the will of a democratic majority and their stated implicit duty to protect the rights of the minority albeit contrary to Article 22,” the statement reads.
The IPC said in its statement that the justices of the Supreme Court Judgement in the appeal case involving Namibian citizens, judging from the multitude of pronouncements against its decision, has left an unpalatable trail of severe traumatic, painful, distressful, moral, religious and cultural psychological harm on the dignity of a considerable number of the sovereign of Namibia.
“The judgement of the Supreme Court has political, religious, customary and social ramifications and as such these are taken into consideration in our evaluation. In essence, upon careful consideration, this is a seminal decision that requires a careful approach, so as to be careful not to coerce nor mislead the Namibian public into a view that may cause tremendous tension,” the IPC said.
The IPC said that it has carefully examined the 77-page judgement and has since made an appropriate evaluation and reached the conclusion that
It is a significantly tragic development in the country’s judiciary system which will require the party to inform the public of the potentiall
y tragic consequences.
“It is on the basis of these carefully considered objective legitimate facts, at least in our view, that we, as the Independent Patriots for Change, declare firmly and substantially that we do not support in any manner whatsoever, the basis upon which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Namibia made its decision,” the statement reads.
The IPC stated that the judgement of the Supreme Court was a patent error in both cases by departing from the well-established definition of the Common Law Principle of ratio dicidendi and its application within the same jurisdictional judicial hierarchy.
“Notwithstanding, we recognise in this respect the Constitutional rights of all our citizens to freedom of speech, expression and conscience, and shall cautiously encourage our members and the public to so exercise their rights under the ambit of the Rule of Law, as when such is lawfully permitted and becomes necessary. It is every citizen’s patriotic duty to defend the Constitution of our young Republ
ic,” the party stated.
The IPC said that it is acutely conscious that there is a significant difference between unsubstantiated uninformed condemnations of Supreme Court judgements founded on valid cultural, customary and religious norms of societal values as well as political objections driven by a compelling urge for political gain, on the one hand, and a legitimate carefully evaluated condemnation of the judgement founded on a carefully evaluated legal analysis of the Namibian Constitution, statutory and common law principles and rights, as relied upon by the Supreme Court on which the judgement is premised.
“It is regrettable that some political leaders and members of Parliament have already expressed their condemnation and proposed Parliamentary intervention notwithstanding separation of powers and the cardinal role of the judiciary to adjudicate on Constitutional issues. Seemingly not having grasped the full impact of the judgement. This nonetheless does not take away the widely held well-founded view t
hat public policy consideration is indeed of importance as it contributes to an appreciation of the desires and aspirations of the electorate in judgments of this nature,” the party said.
According to the IPC’s statement, the justices cited a judgment, horizontally, from a foreign jurisdiction and adopted it as a Common Law Principle in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Namibia on which the judgement is squarely premised.
“This is extremely shocking as the Supreme Court undermined its own sovereignty in adopting a precedent of a foreign court,” the party stated.
[21:43, 5/25/2023] Eba: IPC calls for a referendum on same-sex marriages
Niël Terblanché
By importing horizontally, foreign Common Law Principles from abroad, the Supreme Court of Namibia seriously undermined the sovereignty of the country’s judicial system and made it subordinate to a foreign commonwealth country’s court, in a common law jurisdiction, the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) said.
The Independent Patriots for Change says it w
ill support the Proclamation of a National Referendum as the only legitimate superior act of the Sovereign in which the people of Namibia may exercise their authority in which “All power” is vested.
In a statement, the IPC said that a referendum is the only possible avenue to seek to overturn the judgement, which recognizes same-sex marriage concluded outside the borders of Namibia.
“This is given the pronouncement of their Lordships against the principles of the will of a democratic majority and their stated implicit duty to protect the rights of the minority albeit contrary to Article 22,” the statement reads.
The IPC said in its statement that the justices of the Supreme Court Judgement in the appeal case involving Namibian citizens, judging from the multitude of pronouncements against its decision, has left an unpalatable trail of severe traumatic, painful, distressful, moral, religious and cultural psychological harm on the dignity of a considerable number of the sovereign of Namibia.
“The judgement o
f the Supreme Court has political, religious, customary and social ramifications and as such these are taken into consideration in our evaluation. In essence, upon careful consideration, this is a seminal decision that requires a careful approach, so as to be careful not to coerce nor mislead the Namibian public into a view that may cause tremendous tension,” the IPC said.
The IPC said that it has carefully examined the 77-page judgement and has since made an appropriate evaluation and reached the conclusion that
It is a significantly tragic development in the country’s judiciary system which will require the party to inform the public of the potentially tragic consequences.
“It is on the basis of these carefully considered objective legitimate facts, at least in our view, that we, as the Independent Patriots for Change, declare firmly and substantially that we do not support in any manner whatsoever, the basis upon which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Namibia made its decision,” the statement reads.
The IPC stated that the judgement of the Supreme Court was a patent error in both cases by departing from the well-established definition of the Common Law Principle of ratio dicidendi and its application within the same jurisdictional judicial hierarchy.
“Notwithstanding, we recognise in this respect the Constitutional rights of all our citizens to freedom of speech, expression and conscience, and shall cautiously encourage our members and the public to so exercise their rights under the ambit of the Rule of Law, as when such is lawfully permitted and becomes necessary. It is every citizen’s patriotic duty to defend the Constitution of our young Republic,” the party stated.
The IPC said that it is acutely conscious that there is a significant difference between unsubstantiated uninformed condemnations of Supreme Court judgements founded on valid cultural, customary and religious norms of societal values as well as political objections driven by a compelling urge for political gain, on the one hand, and a leg
itimate carefully evaluated condemnation of the judgement founded on a carefully evaluated legal analysis of the Namibian Constitution, statutory and common law principles and rights, as relied upon by the Supreme Court on which the judgement is premised.
“It is regrettable that some political leaders and members of Parliament have already expressed their condemnation and proposed Parliamentary intervention notwithstanding separation of powers and the cardinal role of the judiciary to adjudicate on Constitutional issues. Seemingly not having grasped the full impact of the judgement. This nonetheless does not take away the widely held well-founded view that public policy consideration is indeed of importance as it contributes to an appreciation of the desires and aspirations of the electorate in judgments of this nature,” the party said.
According to the IPC’s statement, the justices cited a judgment, horizontally, from a foreign jurisdiction and adopted it as a Common Law Principle in the jurisdiction of the
Republic of Namibia on which the judgement is squarely premised.
“This is extremely shocking as the Supreme Court undermined its own sovereignty in adopting a precedent of a foreign court,” the party stated.
