Political Desk
THE Justice Minister, Yvonne Dausab, unleashed a political firestorm among her own ranks when she tabled the divorce amendment bill, which she explained was the result of a “20-year consultative process, expert opinions, and keeping in pace with modern practices.”
Senior SWAPO legislator and former minister of trade, Tjekero Tweya, and firebrand Veikko Nekundi, respectively rejected the whole or sections of the bill, with Speaker Dr. Peter Katjavivi failing to restore order after chaos erupted in the National Assembly.
In an unusual turn of events, Bernadette Jagger of SWAPO asked the Speaker to “for once listen” and adjourn for tea to allow emotions to calm down after tribal smears were exchanged between members. The Secretary-General of SWAPO, Sophia Shaningwa, said it was too “hot in the House” and called for adjournment, but a visibly upset Katjavivi ignored her, insisting that the debate go on as “enough time was already wasted.” Katjavivi’s usual ally in the PDM, Elma Dienda, also failed to convince him, and the debate was eventually adjourned because the Speaker had another appointment. When the Deputy Speaker took over the chair, the assembly and the debate were adjourned.
The National Assembly debate on the divorce amendment bill by Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab derailed and then plummeted into chaos. In what was described as a Trojan Horse attack on the beleaguered minister, the controversial Ekandjo bills, which were approved by SWAPO and all opposition parties in the National Assembly, were presented by Tweya as an “obstacle as spouses must also be defined in the divorce bill.”
“This bill cannot even be discussed,” Tweya said.
The Deputy Minister of Works and Transport, Veikko Nekundi, and the Speaker of the National Assembly, Peter Katjavivi, were unsuccessfully called to order, with “Wambo and Herero insults” being exchanged. However, Prof. Katjavivi shrugged it off and said he would continue and that Nekundi must stop repeating himself.
Nekundi, in his contribution to the debate, took issue with spousal maintenance.
“I have a fundamental problem. In the first instance here, it says in divorce proceedings, either of the parties may apply to the court for spousal maintenance. When divorce kicks in, there is no spouse, there is only an ex. I cannot maintain my ex; that’s something wrong. We are trying to confuse value systems. I never came across a European parliament adopting African principles. In becoming part of the global community, we come to adopt European values. I need to emphasize that this is a law-making body. We need to find our own ground. This law repeals a number of laws… Comrade Speaker, what I am saying is that this particular bill, as much as the majority conquers, the issue of spousal maintenance cannot be sustained and should not be made a law. Section 16, which relates to child maintenance, I have no problem with that. Whether you are a man or woman, once that love ceases to exist, that maintenance should not continue,” Nekundi said.
Maximalliant Katjimune of the PDM, however, pointed out that the text of the statute should be read as a whole and not in part. “Section 10 subsection 7 gives considerations on what the court will consider when giving spousal maintenance. The court will not just give an arbitrary decision; it follows some guidance,” Katjimune said.
Utaara Mootu, LPM Chief Whip, said that in many people’s families and cultures, one can still support an ex-wife and that this is based on the African traditions Nekundi was citing.
To this, the Speaker called for the elevation of the debate and that the members of parliament move on to the next point.
Nekundi chastised the Speaker for giving the floor to others, leading to a heated debate in which Katjavivi asked Nekundi to sit down and not argue with the chair.
Nekundi reiterated that he dealt with clause 10, which addresses spousal maintenance. “I have my reasons for why I am dismissing it and calling for the whole clause to be removed,” Nekundi said. The Speaker once more asked Nekundi to refer to clauses in the debate and not sections after Nekundi moved on to section one of the divorce bill, which deals with the definition of marriage.
“What’s the problem now… Comrade Speaker, I am referring to section one. A clause is under a section. Section one deals with definitions. The first deals with the issue of marriage. For the purpose of what is correct. In terms of the fact that the August House has already agreed on the definition of marriage, it should say as defined in the Marriage Amendment Act of 2023. Comrade Speaker, no, no, no. I’m also a human too. I am a starter. You are harassing me, Hon. Speaker. No, no, no,” Nekundi said, as the shouting between himself and the Speaker continued.
The altercation was intercepted by the Secretary-General of the SWAPO party, who suggested taking a break. “I think the temperature in the chamber is very warm. If there are some problems, can we please have a break? It is ugly out there, Comrade Speaker. Both of you are from the same house; we cannot go on like this, the two of you now. Just for us to cool the temperature, let us take a break, Comrade Speaker,” Shaningwa said.
Giving his input on the bill, Tweya said that the definition of marriage should be addressed before the matter of dissolution of marriage.
“In this house, we had those two we amended so we have no confusion. When we talk of a marriage, it is a relationship between two opposite genders. I have a problem with this bill if it does not give a clear definition. Before we come to the dissolution of marriage, we should come to the definition first. This thing that I cannot even pronounce – L up to Q things who are justifying this thing, we will be caught off-guard. For us to entertain this, we must ascertain our definition of marriage, and ‘spouse’ must first go through. In the same document, if you do not agree with me on the definition of marriage, get the clarity,” Tweya said.
The debate was adjourned with much more fireworks and resistance against the law and the Ekandjo-laws being main features. In the corridors, it was already suggested that the SWAPO elders recently had a discussion with Ekandjo and asked him to “cool it” a bit. He was not in parliament during the divorce discussions.
