By Patience Makwele
The High Court has ordered suspended Inspector-General of the Namibian Police Joseph Shikongo and the ministry of home affairs, immigration, safety and security to compensate activists Michael Amushelelo and Dimbulukeni Nauyoma for their arrests, detention, and prosecution following an anti-unemployment protest in 2023.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the court awarded Amushelelo N$300,000 in damages and Nauyoma N$80,000. The government was also ordered to pay their legal costs.
The case stems from the pair’s arrests during a planned protest against unemployment in Windhoek on 21 March 2023, which coincided with Namibia’s Independence Day celebrations.
The demonstration was cancelled by Shikongo, a decision the activists challenged, arguing that their constitutional rights to assemble peacefully and express themselves had been violated.
Their lawyer, Kadhila Amoomo, described the ruling as a watershed moment for civil liberties in Namibia.
“This is a watershed judgment in the history of Namibia because it speaks directly to the constitutional right to assemble and protest. It sends a strong message that state power has limits and that constitutional rights cannot simply be suspended through administrative decisions,” Amoomo said.
Reacting to the ruling, Amushelelo said on his social media platforms that the judgment vindicated a struggle he had pursued for more than three years.
“My fellow Namibians, we must never forget that people died and some were brutally tortured in order for us to have fundamental rights. On 21 March 2023, we were exercising our constitutional rights to assemble peaceably and without arms,” he said in a statement issued shortly after the judgment.
Amushelelo further alleged that his arrest was politically motivated and linked to his public calls at the time for Shikongo’s suspension.
He also criticised aspects of the criminal justice process that followed his arrest, although those allegations were not tested in the civil proceedings that resulted in Wednesday’s judgment.
Political commentator Erickson Mbangu Rukoro stated that the ruling goes beyond compensation and strikes at the heart of democratic accountability.
“What makes this judgment significant is not the amount awarded but the principle affirmed by the court. Constitutional rights are meaningful only when there are consequences for violating them. The court has effectively reminded public officials that they exercise authority under the Constitution and not above it,” he said.
Rukoro said the ruling could have a lasting effect on how future protests are managed.
“For years, there has been uncertainty about where the line is between maintaining public order and restricting fundamental freedoms. This judgment provides a clearer signal that state institutions must approach protests from a rights-based perspective rather than a control-based perspective,” he added.
In a telephonic interview with the Windhoek Observer, constitutional law expert Josephine Lumba Mukena said the ruling reinforces longstanding constitutional protections that have existed since independence.
“The Constitution is very clear regarding freedom of assembly and expression. What the court appears to have done is reaffirm that these rights cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. Any restriction must satisfy strict constitutional requirements and must be justifiable in a democratic society,” she stated.
Mukena warned that unlawful decisions by state officials can carry financial consequences for taxpayers.
“When public officials act outside the law, it is often the public purse that ultimately bears the cost. This is why adherence to constitutional standards is not merely a legal obligation but also a governance and accountability issue,” said Mukena.
Meanwhile, political analyst Alex Murangi said the judgment may encourage greater civic participation among Namibians who have become reluctant to engage in public demonstrations.
“Many citizens have become hesitant to exercise their constitutional rights because they fear intimidation, arrest, or lengthy legal battles. This ruling may restore confidence that the courts remain an important avenue for protecting democratic freedoms,” Murangi said.
He added that the case also highlights the importance of judicial oversight in a constitutional democracy.
“Democracy is not measured by elections alone. It is also measured by whether citizens can criticise authority, organise peacefully, and challenge government decisions without fear of unlawful reprisals,” he said.
Human rights advocate Maxine Tuyoleni Haitembu said the judgment should serve as a catalyst for institutional reform within law enforcement agencies.
“The significance of this case lies in its potential to change behaviour. The police have a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order, but that responsibility must always be exercised within constitutional boundaries. There is a need for ongoing training and awareness among law enforcement officers regarding protest rights and civil liberties,” Haitembu remarked.
She further stated that accountability mechanisms become meaningful only when violations carry consequences.
“When courts hold state institutions accountable, it strengthens public confidence in the rule of law and reinforces the principle that no one is above the Constitution,” she added.
