Renthia Kaimbi
The High Court has dismissed an urgent application by Namibia Central Intelligence Service (NCIS) director general Sinsy Nghipandua to have a defamation case heard entirely behind closed doors.
High Court deputy judge president Shafimana Ueitele ruled on 19 May that broad claims about national security were not enough to justify secrecy in court proceedings.
The matter stems from a defamation lawsuit filed by senior public servant Fiina Elago against the NCIS and the minister of home affairs, immigration, safety and security.
Elago claims an NCIS official falsely stated in a March 2024 letter that her security vetting “could not be finalised” because she had “a pending case with her previous employer”.
She denies that any such case existed and is suing for N$1.8 million in damages and a retraction.
Before the main case could proceed, Nghipandua asked the High Court to order that the entire matter be heard in camera, meaning behind closed doors.
He also requested that all court documents remain confidential and that the media, including social media platforms, be barred from reporting on the proceedings.
Nghipandua argued that the dispute involved a security vetting process and that an open hearing could expose classified information, compromise intelligence operations and endanger lives.
Ueitele rejected the request. Quoting 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, Ueitele said “publicity is the very soul of justice”.
He acknowledged that Article 12 of the Namibian Constitution allows courts to exclude the public or media in matters involving national security, but only where it is necessary in a democratic society.
Ueitele stressed that court proceedings must generally remain open to the public unless strong evidence justifies secrecy.
“The director general has not identified with precision the information which is said to be classified,” Ueitele said.
“He has not explained why the truth or falsity of the statement that Elago had a ‘pending case’ cannot be determined without revealing intelligence methods or sources. Nor has he placed evidence before this court showing that lives, operations or national security interests will probably be endangered by an open hearing. General assertions are insufficient. Article 12 requires necessity, not speculation.”
The court also found that Elago’s case is not a challenge to the security vetting process itself but a defamation claim focused on whether a statement in a letter was false.
Nghipandua argued that once national security is raised, courts cannot refuse secrecy orders.
Ueitele rejected that argument and referred to an earlier Supreme Court ruling which stated that “the notion that matters of national security are beyond crucial scrutiny is not consonant with the values of an open and democratic society”.
Ueitele warned against using national security as a blanket reason to avoid accountability.
He said courts must balance the protection of genuine state secrets with the public’s constitutional right to open justice.
Ueitele further stated that if sensitive information arises later in the case, the NCIS can apply for limited protections such as redactions or closed portions of testimony instead of shutting down the entire trial.
He also said hearing the case completely in secret could unfairly damage Elago’s reputation by creating suspicion around the allegations against her.
The court dismissed the application with costs, meaning the NCIS must pay Elago’s legal costs, including fees for one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.
The defamation case will now continue in open court.
The defendants must file their pleas or counterclaims by 5 June 2026, while the first case management conference is scheduled for 30 June 2026.
