Amupanda secures no-costs order in redline legal battle

If he loses a court case about Namibia’s veterinary cordon fence (redline), Affirmative Repositioning leader Job Amupanda will not be forced to pay the legal costs of the government and other parties in the matter.

This is in terms of an order that judge Shafimana Ueitele issued in the Windhoek High Court on Friday.

Ueitele directed that there will not be an order on the payment of legal costs in Amupanda’s application to have the redline declared unlawful and unconstitutional, and to have the government ordered to remove the fence.

The effect of this order is that if Amupanda loses the case, his opponents in the matter – including the government, minister of agriculture, water and land reform, the Livestock and Livestock Products Board of Namibia (previously the Meat Board of Namibia) and the Namibia Agricultural Union – will not be able to recover their legal costs from him.

The redline was erected to control the spread of livestock diseases between communal farming areas in northern Namibia and the rest of the country.

Amupanda is claiming that the redline is “a colonial structure” erected “to achieve colonial aims and objectives”.

He says it was not sanctioned by any law in Namibia and “is not rationally connected to any purposes”.

He is also alleging that the redline is discriminatory, violates the dignity of people and “continues to be used for purposes of controlling the movement of animals and black people from the north to the south of Namibia”.

In his application to be protected against a possible order to carry his opponents’ legal costs in the matter, Amupanda says the parties’ legal costs “are likely to be astronomical and beyond my pockets”.

He also says he did not launch his legal action to have the redline removed for personal gain, “but primarily out of concern for the plight of Namibians who continue to suffer the injustices emanating from the redline”.

Amupanda states: “A protective costs order will enable the parties to litigate on an equal footing and ensure that the issues are comprehensively canvassed in a fair and expeditious manner.”

In his judgement, Ueitele says in his view, Amupanda “must not, for fear of an adverse costs order, be deterred from pursuing his claim”.

Ueitele remarks that he, “to an extent,” agrees with arguments that Amupanda did not fully and honestly disclose his financial position regarding business entities in which he has interests.

However, the information that Amupanda provided to the court still enabled him to make a finding on whether it would be fair and just to give an order protecting Amupanda from having to pay his opponents’ legal costs, Ueitele adds.

He notes that although Amupanda is not penniless, “he also is not a man of unlimited financial resources”.

Amupanda informed the court that his net monthly income, from his salary as a lecturer at the University of Namibia and a member of the Windhoek City Council, has ranged between N$50 000 and N$65 000 from December 2020.

His monthly expenses amount to about N$53 000, he also informed the court.

Agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein says in a witness statement filed at the court that the redline serves “as an effective barrier to prevent the outbreak and spreading of infectious animal diseases in Namibia”.

This secures Namibia’s status as a country with a zone free of foot-and-mouth disease without vaccination, which in turn gives the country access to the best-paying markets for its meat products globally, but comes at the cost of limited market access for meat products from the northern communal areas, Schlettwein says.

Shifting the redline or removing it “is not a simple action which can take place overnight”, but requires a gradual approach that would not erase progress made against the spread of livestock diseases like foot-and-mouth disease, he says in his witness statement as well.

The case is at this stage scheduled to be heard from 20 January next year.