Traditional Authorities Act and Customary Laws

DISGRUNTLED NATIVE WRITES:

I have observed that many times we are misconstruing the legal provisions of the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000 and the respective Customary Laws of our respective traditional communities. 

In essence, we must take cognizance that the traditions, culture, traditional practices, beliefs and norms of these traditional communities are completely different.

The institution or coronation of chiefs or headmen has totally gotten out of hand. Some tribes are sitting with 3 to 4 chiefs of which only one is recognized by the Government and in particular the Ministry of Urban & Rural Development. It almost appears that each household or people carrying the same surname are trying to coronate their own chief or headman. 

We can’t allow this to happen or condone it, simply because we then have Laws that we can’t implement. Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000 deal with designation, prior notification of designation and recognition of chiefs.

So we can’t entertain lawlessness in this country. The Vaalgras situation is one such example of increasing institution of household chiefs for certain families. In my personal view, the line Ministry has full mandate and powers to enact relevant acts or to come up with amendments, viz. limiting the term of office of chiefs, compelling traditional authorities to convene a certain number of community meetings per annum and taking minutes at meetings in terms of Section 9 (5) of the Act, etc. 

Equally, do I condemn the Ministry's failure to implement the provisions of Section 3 (4) of the same Act, which deals with chiefs purporting to perform powers and duties of recognized chiefs within their jurisdiction areas.

I will fail in my duties and attempts if I exclude political interference from the Government’s side in order to score political majority, retain and to strengthen their support base. The Government must enact stringent amendments to the existing regulatory governing laws to address this situation of lawlessness. 

We have adequate institutions, instruments and laws to deal with this situation.

To my surprise, Hon. James has been doing relatively well, especially in the northern areas and in Zambezi, since his appointment, but I am wondering why he is reluctant to take on the Vaalgras chieftainship impasse, or is it politics again? 

If a given community can make ends meet without a chief for more than five years, then you don’t need a chief or headman. In the event of a continuous leadership impasse, the Honourable Minister has the constitutional mandate or obligation to dissolve such a Traditional Authority and to impose Section 5 (10)(b) of the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000, which deals with elections. 

How on earth can you have three (3) chiefs within a traditional community of barely 3 000 community members? I have underscored or highlighted several options for consideration and I rest my case. . .

* Beste lesers, keuring vir die ­publikasie van WhatsApp, briewe en alle ander lesers­bydraes berus by Republikein. Klagtes oor die diens van ­private besighede word eers aan die onder­neming vir reaksie voorgelê. Die menings van ons lesers en rubriekskrywers verteenwoordig nie noodwendig die standpunt van Republikein nie. Republikein is ’n lid van die Redakteursforum van Namibië (EFN) en onderskryf die etiese kode vir die Namibiese media soos toegepas deur die media-ombudsman.