Staff Reporter
HIGH Court Judge, Deputy Judge President Shafimana Ueitele has today dismissed an application by Fishrot accused former Minister of Justice, Sackeus Shanghala, and two others who contended that their constitutional rights are being violated due to their continued prosecution in the Otjozondjupa courtroom, situated at the Windhoek Correctional Facility, while the internal architectural configuration remains as it is.
Shafimana said that, due to the Judiciary making several changes in the courtroom as requested by the applicants in the matter, there is no live issue in respect of the architectural design of the Otjozondjupa courtroom for this court to adjudicate upon, rendering Shanghala, Pius Mwatelulo, and James Hatuikulipi’s application moot. The judge, however, ordered the judiciary to provide a report on the progress made with regard to court infrastructure.
The judge said that, having regard to the facts that the respondents in the matter removed the Spanish metal burglar bar cage from the Otjozondjupa courtroom, and that chairs with backrests had been provided, this had set in motion the necessary action in the matter.
He added that the respondents also agreed to provide the consultation room sought by the applicants. Justice Shafimana thus said that, therefore, there were no live issues in respect of the architectural design of the Otjozondjupa courtroom for this court to adjudicate upon.
“To adjudicate on the circumstances that gave rise to the applicants’ grievance, which circumstances no longer exist, would be to do so in a vacuum. Therefore, if the court were to decide on the effect of the architectural design of the Otjozondjupa courtroom on the applicants’ constitutional rights, there would be no effect other than a mere declaration that the architectural design of the Otjozondjupa courtroom either violated or did not violate the applicants’ constitutional rights. As a result, this court’s decision in respect of the architectural design of the Otjozondjupa courtroom on the current facts would have no effect. In the premises, I find that the bulk of the applicants’ grievances have been rendered moot by the undertakings of the respondents,” Justice Shafimana said.
He added that the only aspect that is still alive between the parties is the applicants’ prayer for this court to direct the Executive Director or the Registrar of the High Court to, not later than 90 days from the date of this judgment, prepare a report for this court on structural changes made to different courts.
The judge thus ordered the Executive Director to prepare a report for the court, detailing what action has been taken and when; what action is outstanding; reasons for such inaction or delay; when it may be expected that such inaction or delay may be overcome and the necessary action taken; any interim measures availed or suggested; and any other relevant information as they may regard necessary in regard to the execution of the undertakings made.
