Are the courts out of touch with the ordinary, and often poor, people they serve?

6 March 2024 · Carmel Rickard

This is a question that readers can’t help asking, based on a contempt of court conviction and sentence by the magistrate’s court in Namibia. The case raises concerns about a lack of sensitivity and awareness of that court to the daily difficulties of poor people it serves. The accused in the case, Festus Shimmy, was sent to prison for three months because he wore ‘short pants’ to a court hearing and the magistrate convicted him of contempt of court for doing so. Explaining his attire, Shimmy told the court that his long trousers were very dirty and so he had worn the shorts. To make matters worse, his case was not sent to the high court on review ‘without delay’, as the law requires in contempt of court matters, but only arrived for review well after the three-month sentence had expired. This meant that even though the high court set aside his conviction and sentence, this came too late for Shimmy. Further, the high court pointed out that the magistrate imposed a fine of N$500, though the law clearly states the maximum is N$100.

Read judgment

Several aspects of this special review judgment should be causing concern within Namibia’s justice system.

The case, S v Shimmy, results from the conviction of Festus Shimmy for contempt of court by the divisional magistrate’s court in Keetmanshoop. His sentence was N$500 or 30 days in prison.

The first problem is that Shimmy was convicted and sentenced on 14 June 2023. But the case was sent on special review from the court with a letter dated 22 November 2023, far later than it should have been - and too late to have been of any help to Shimmy.

Yellow jersey and short pants

Why the contempt of court verdict and sentence in the first place? What had Shimmy done? According to the court, he committed contempt in the face of the court, by appearing in court ‘in a yellow jersey and short pants’.

The section of the Magistrate’s Court Act under which Shimmy was convicted says that anyone who ‘wilfully insults a judicial officer during his sitting’ can be liable to removal and detention, and is also liable ‘to be sentenced summarily … to a fine not exceeding R100 … or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months’.

However, if a court jails or fines anyone under this section, the judicial officer concerned must ‘without delay, transmit to the registrar of the court of appeal for the consideration and review of a judge in chambers, a statement, certified by such judicial officer to be true and correct, of the grounds and reasons of [the] proceedings, and shall also furnish to the party committed a copy of such statement.’

Procedure not followed in this case

In their review judgment, high court judges Herman January and Naomi Shivute note that the only concerns raised in the covering letter by the divisional magistrate and the presiding magistrate, related to the fact that the sentence was outside that authorised by the law.

That, however, was not the only concern, the judges point out. The law also lays down a procedure that must be followed in such a case. This including sending a statement to the court of appeal ‘without delay’; that the statement, which must be certified to be true and correct, must explain the grounds and reasons for the conviction and sentence, and that the convicted person must also be given a copy of the statement.

This procedure was not followed in the Shimmy case.

Not in accordance with justice

Even before the judges dealt with those problems, however, they noted that the record and warrant of detention reflected that the accused was ‘99 years old’. In fact, however, the accused explained in mitigation that he was 26.

In addition to this problem, said the judges, the proceedings in the magistrate’s court showed that they were not in accordance with justice.

According to the record, the magistrate ‘observe[d] that the accused is dressed inappropriately, accused is wearing a short trouser and jersey.’ In the proceedings that followed, the accused was told of his right to legal counsel at his own cost, the right to ask for legal aid, and the right to conduct his own defence.

Shimmy said he wanted to defend himself and, asked why the court should not hold him in contempt, he said, ‘I did not do it on purpose the trouser I was supposed to wear is very dirty and I cannot come with that trouser because it is very dirty that is why I came with a short.’

‘Inappropriately brief’ inquiry by the magistrate

The court responded that this wasn’t a good enough explanation and found him guilty.

In mitigation, Shimmy said he was 26, unemployed and unmarried but with two children under 18. The mother of the children was unemployed and he was supporting them ‘as my grandmother is unemployed’. He continued, ‘If I may be warned. I will not do it again.’

Though the state recommended a fine of N100 or 20 days, the magistrate imposed a fine of N$500 or 30 days.

The magistrate's inquiry about the contempt allegedly committed by Shimmy was ‘inappropriately brief’, said the judges. It didn’t cover the question of intent or unlawfulness, and he wasn’t asked whether he ‘willingly wanted to insult the judicial officer … or be contemptuous’ and whether he knew that it was ‘unlawful to appear in court in the manner that he did.’

Reasonable explanation had been given

In fact, the judges added, Shimmy had given a reasonable explanation for his attire. Add to this the further fact that it was the court orderly’s duty not to admit an accused into court if his ‘appearance was inappropriate and offensive’.

‘In addition, there is no evidence or admission that the accused was previously warned of what an appropriate dressing to court is.’

Further, the fine of N$500 was beyond the maximum fine of N$100 stipulated by law.

Clearly, the convictions and sentence were therefore not in accordance with justice and should be set aside. If Shimmy had paid a fine, it had to be refunded to him, the court ruled.

Too late to be of any effect

What should be worrying anyone concerned to see justice in Namibia is the fact that the decision in this case was sent to the high court for review too late for it to be of any effect, despite the fact that the law requires a record of such cases to be sent ‘without delay’.

Then, there is the sloppy way in which the record and warrant of detention was compiled, reflecting that a 26-year-old man was actually 99, not to mention the fact that the fine imposed was outside the limits allowed by the law, something the magistrate can hardly have overlooked at the time.

Worrying lack of sensitivity to the community served by the court

But overall, the magistrate’s approach seems to speak of someone out of touch with the ordinary people who appear in the courts.

If you have only two garments, namely a pair of trousers and a pair of shorts, what are you supposed to do if one is too dirty to wear to court? Perhaps the magistrate, assured of a monthly salary, can’t imagine what it is like to be unemployed and desperately poor?

As the judges point out, the conviction did not follow any serious attempt to establish whether the man’s ‘inappropriate dressing’ was intended to insult the judicial officer or to be contemptuous.

Altogether it speaks of a worrying lack of sensitivity about the community that the magistrate serves. The fact that the divisional magistrate seemed just as unaware of this lack of sensitivity makes the situation even worse.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.