Namibia’s justice system does not need another conference merely to describe what is wrong with it. It needs action.
The conclusion of the three-day State of Justice Conference in Windhoek should therefore be treated not as the end of a discussion, but as the beginning of a national repair programme for a justice system facing serious infrastructure, capacity, coordination and administrative weaknesses.
The issues placed before the conference are neither new nor abstract. Poorly maintained court facilities, inaccessible buildings, inadequate waiting and consultation spaces, weak records management, shortages of specialist services and avoidable postponements all have one thing in common: they ultimately affect real people.
Justice delayed is not simply an administrative inconvenience. For an accused person awaiting trial, it can mean prolonged uncertainty and, in some cases, extended detention. For victims, particularly survivors of gender-based violence, delays can deepen trauma and frustration. For witnesses, repeated postponements can mean repeated disruption to their lives. For correctional facilities, delays can contribute to overcrowding and pressure on already constrained resources.
This is why the warning from Ministry of Justice and Labour Relations executive director Audrin Mathe that the country must move from managing avoidable postponements to preventing them deserves serious attention.
There should be no normalisation of postponements caused by incomplete investigations, missing records, unavailable witnesses, delayed reports, transport problems or poor communication. Some delays will inevitably occur in any justice system. But delays caused by failures that can reasonably be anticipated and corrected should not become an accepted feature of the administration of justice.
The Chief Justice, Peter Shivute, correctly placed the problem in its broader context. Namibia does not have separate justice systems operating in isolation. It has institutions with different constitutional and statutory mandates that together form a single justice chain.
A breakdown at one point can create consequences elsewhere.
A delayed investigation can affect prosecution. A delayed prosecution can affect the courts. Court delays can affect accused persons, victims and correctional facilities. Weak records management can disrupt proceedings. A shortage of forensic specialists can hold up cases requiring psychiatric assessments.
The citizen experiencing this chain of failures is unlikely to care which institution is responsible for which particular delay. The citizen sees one justice system — and judges that system by whether justice is delivered fairly, efficiently and within a reasonable time.
That reality should compel institutions to cooperate more closely without compromising their independence or constitutional mandates.
The answer, however, cannot simply be another committee, another workshop or another document containing recommendations that gather dust.
Namibia has no shortage of policy documents, strategic plans and conference resolutions. The real test is implementation.
Chief Justice Shivute’s call for actionable resolutions, clearly defined responsibilities, timelines and mechanisms to monitor progress is therefore particularly important. Every major recommendation emerging from the conference should have an owner, a deadline and a measurable outcome.
The public should be able to ask, six months from now: What has been done?
A year from now: Which targets have been met?
And if targets have not been met: Why not?
Accountability must become part of the justice reform process itself.
Infrastructure deserves particular attention. Courts are places where some of the most consequential decisions affecting people’s lives are made. They should therefore provide safe, accessible and dignified environments for everyone who enters them.
It is especially concerning that some facilities reportedly lack suitable spaces for children who have survived gender-based violence. The justice system should never compound the vulnerability of people who have already suffered harm.
Modernisation must also extend beyond buildings.
Record management and information technology are increasingly fundamental to an efficient justice system. Paper-based, fragmented or poorly connected systems can create unnecessary delays and administrative failures. Integrating ICT systems across the justice chain, as proposed by Prime Minister Elijah Ngurare, could improve information flows and coordination — provided that cybersecurity, privacy and data sovereignty are properly protected.
Capacity is equally important. A justice system cannot be expected to operate efficiently if it does not have enough qualified personnel and specialist services. The shortage of psychiatrists available for forensic assessments is a case in point. Where specialist assessments are necessary for proceedings, the absence or limited availability of experts can become a bottleneck affecting the entire case.
This is where investment in justice should be understood not as an expense, but as an investment in the rule of law.
There is also a wider question of public confidence.
When people repeatedly encounter postponements, inaccessible facilities, missing records or lengthy waits, confidence in institutions can suffer. As Shivute observed, that loss of confidence is not neatly assigned to one institution. It is shared across the justice system.
The legal profession, too, has a responsibility to ensure that legitimate legal processes are not unnecessarily prolonged or used to harass individuals. Prime Minister Ngurare’s call for “legal common sense” should be understood within the broader need for a justice system that protects rights while avoiding needless procedural abuse.
Ultimately, Namibia does not need a perfect justice system. It needs a justice system that continuously identifies its weaknesses and fixes them with urgency.
The State of Justice Conference has done the country a service by placing these weaknesses firmly on the national agenda. But conferences do not deliver justice. Courts do. Investigators do. Prosecutors do. Lawyers do. Corrections officials do. Administrators do. Government does.
And all of them must now do better.
The most powerful resolution to emerge from the conference should therefore be simple: no more postponing the fixing of justice.
The country has identified the problems. Now it must deliver the solutions.
