AG must advise, not threaten


During the course of last week, the Law Society of Namibia circulated a letter purporting to be from the Attorney General (AG) of the Republic of Namibia.

I know the Law Society replied correctly and properly, but I shall also exercise my Constitutional right, for the sake of the future of my child, the rule of law and democracy, which we will vehemently uphold as legal practitioners.
Let me begin. I have not come across any provision in the Constitution that empowers the AG to preside over legal practitioners or to dictate to them whom they should represent or not.

All legal practitioners take an oath to uphold and protect the Namibian Constitution when they are admitted. It is our duty as legal practitioners not to break the law or help people commit an offence, but should they commit an offence, intentionally or not, such citizens shall be entitled to be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.

My Constitution, which the principal advisor to the president ought to know by heart, has clear divisions of power, which need to be respected. This was the intention of the drafters, of which the first citizen was the principal drafter.

I would have expected the AG to have advised the president, instead of threatening legal practitioners, who are regulated by an Act of Parliament and not a policy directive from the AG’s office.

We voted for the president and not the AG, and therefore owe the AG no “prompt response” at all. This is the second blunder the AG committed since taking office.

The AG not long ago demanded the list of names of those who attended the legal consultative conference by the AR. Is that not the function of the Central Intelligence?

An Attorney General cannot run the country in the presence of a democratically-elected president. My conscience informs me that there is a difference between Administrator General, the last having been Louis Pienaar, and Attorney General.

Joshua Razikua Kaumbi,


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here