E-Justice Namibia High Court Judgements

The Supreme Court said it was « difficult to understand » why Lyero`s legal team had not advised him « as one would have expected from experienced lawyers » that he should appeal the Supreme Court`s first decision directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that the proper procedure would have been to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against the Supreme Court`s initial decision rejecting the acquiescence request. But this is not the path taken by the accused and his lawyers. My Lords and LadiesThe Learned Attorney – GeneralThe Honourable Deputy Minister of JusticeThe Permanent Minister of JusticeThe Scholar President of the Law Society of NamibiaThe Learned President of the Law SocietyThe Scholar President of the Namibian Law AssociationMain CouncilSeminar Law Practitioners and Candidate Legal PractitionersThe Clerk and Staff of the High CourtMy media representativesMemorandand[1] This is the beginning of the process again Legal Year of the Supreme Court, which provides us with another opportunity to evaluate and evaluate the successes and challenges of the past legal year and share with you or your plans for the coming year. I would like to thank the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the successive Permanent Ministers of Justice for continuing to support the Court in its quest for efficiency and quality and prompt justice. The Supreme Court of Namibia was established on 21 March 1990, Namibia`s independence day. Although its predecessor was the Supreme Court of South West Africa, the Latter was not a Supreme Court in the sense that appeals against its decisions would be admissible; the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa would hear them and they would be prosecuted by the Supreme Court of South West Africa. [1] When it was founded in 1990, the Supreme Court did not have its own building. [2] The Supreme Court building on Michael Scott Street in Eliakim Namundjebo Plaza in central Windhoek was built between 1994 and 1996 as an « imposing and functional building » to « enhance the integrity and soul of the […] Constitution ». [3] It was designed in a North African style to avoid similarities with European colonial buildings,[4] and it is the only building in Windhoek built after independence in an African architectural style. [5] The building was constructed to contain two courtrooms, four judges` offices and a law library on the first floor.

The construction and planning of the building required extensive geotechnical studies as it is located on a geological fault. [3] Emphasis was placed on the fact that the second judgment of the High Court overturned the first decision of the High Court. « This is a serious irregularity because it essentially amounts to the same court overturning or reversing its own previous decision. » The Second High Court had indeed « sat as a court of appeal » against the judgment and decision of the first court. « In other words, the second court ruled as a court of appeal on the basis of its own judgment and decision. In its final decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the second judgment and the court order « constitute an irregularity, » reviewed them and overturned them. Similarly, the notice of appeal for the second case of the Supreme Court was declared irregular, revised and annulled, while the hearing before the Supreme Court on the second decision of the Supreme Court was removed from the list. Namibia`s Supreme Court was busy preparing a written verdict on an appeal in a rape case when it concluded that something was wrong. Unknown at the time of the hearing of the case, there were actually two Decisions of the Supreme Court in the same case. The first of the two had refused to allow the appeal in the context of an unsuccessful application for a tolerance of late filing, as the court had concluded that there was no chance of success in the appeal.

Three months later, the same applicant filed another application for appeal. This time, the court determined that there was indeed a chance of success on appeal and had the case heard by the Supreme Court. What made the conflict between these two Supreme Court decisions even more remarkable was that one of the two judges of the first decision also sat in the second lawsuit and actually drafted the verdict, which this time came to a completely different conclusion from that which had been established in the original decision. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the second application to the High Court was wrongly made and that it was a « serious irregularity » for the Second High Court to set aside the Order made by the High Court the first time. What makes the story even more controversial is the fact that the convicted man, Vincent Likoro, was named a high-ranking « think tank » of the ruling Swapo party after being convicted of rape, a decision that was strongly defended by a senior Swapo official at the time. « This is unacceptable. An appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court is addressed only to the Supreme Court and not to another Supreme Court, constituted differently, a member of which was in any case legally excluded from the reconsideration of an application for leave to appeal after having already sat in the same case. [8] In view of the entry into force of the new rules on 16 April 2014, the finalisation of the practical instructions and administrative manuals as well as the e-justice procedure remain to be completed. The first phase of e-Justice will be implemented at the Ministry.

Implementation in the NLD will follow towards the end of 2014. The launch of the E-Justice web portal is scheduled for February 2014, followed by the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) process, which will take place from January 27 to March 21, 2014. We call on legal professionals to cooperate during this exercise. The actual training and availability of training materials will take place during the first break at the end of this semester. In addition, and in preparation for the introduction of e-justice, it is recommended that legal professionals working with loyalty fund certificates take the following measures and measures: Perhaps the fact that Likoro is now subject to the first decision of the Supreme Court to cancel his release on bail and ask him to appear to begin his sentence will now draw the attention of the party to the matter, Shaningwa didn`t want to think about why a political party apparently determined to eliminate gender-based violence should appoint a convicted rapist to an influential position. [9] Towards the end of this mandate, renovations to the Supreme Court are imminent, and it is therefore important that I point out that there will be inconveniences during this fiscal year. The main entrance will be moved and the public car park at the front of the building will be closed to the public. Noise, dust and any other inconvenience will also occur during the renovation.

[10] Following the Minister`s remarks, I must focus a little on the criminal work of the Supreme Court. Statistics show that 38 criminal trials and 220 criminal appeals were recorded in 2013. The 38 criminal trials were divided between three judges from the Main Division and two from the Local Northern Division. Only 29 of the criminal trials have been completed. I am concerned, as are my colleagues in the Criminal Division, that we will very soon be completely overwhelmed by the number of criminal proceedings that the Attorney General, who exercises her powers under the CPA, wants to bring before the Supreme Court. Last year we already set cases for 2014 and we are looking ahead to 2015. The criminal trial judges` list of the Criminal Chamber is already full for 2014 and many cases are awaiting trial. The consequence is that all cases that are ready to be negotiated this year are likely to be given trial dates in 2015 and beyond.

We simply do not have the physical facilities and legal resources to negotiate all the cases that are ready to be negotiated in a given year. [11] It is well known that criminal proceedings before the High Court last on average more than 30 days and that cases where certain cases are heard are the rule rather than the exception. We have designed a criminal justice system that is increasingly untenable. We need to look for innovative ways to deal with our criminal cases. It is therefore important that we, as a country, seriously consider the possibility of introducing pleadings into our criminal justice system in order to encourage the accused to plead guilty. Current prosecution policy advises against admitting guilt, as defendants see no incentive to plead guilty. I am therefore encouraged by government policies that promote the investigation of plea bargaining as a viable legislative intervention. [4] I am pleased to inform you that the new rules of the Supreme Court have now been finalized and will be published in Official Gazette No. 5392 as Government Communication No. 4 on January 17, 2014 and will enter into force on April 16, 2014. [5] The new rules introduce very important innovations and measures. One of these important aspects is the transparency and accountability expected of judges.

The delivery of judgments will soon be strictly regulated and controlled. Judges are required to render their judgments in accordance with the rules laid down in the Rules of Procedure in the event of an application for interim measures and, in general, when the judgment is reserved, to announce in public and in public session the time limit for rendering reserved judgments.