Allexer Namundjembo
Deputy minister of defence and veterans affairs and Swapo Central Committee member Charles Mubita has been ordered to pay N$158 289 in legal costs after losing his defamation case against fellow party member Reinhold Shipwiikineni.
The High Court dismissed Mubita’s claim on 14 February 2025 and ordered him to pay Shipwiikineni’s legal costs.
The costs were taxed on 8 December 2025 during a hearing before Taxation Master Tanita van der Merwe in the High Court’s Main Division.
Shipwiikineni’s bill of costs, prepared by Tjombe Incorporated, was taxed on a party-and-party scale and certified at N$158 289. The amount was signed and confirmed on the same day by Taxation Master Bregitha Coetzee.
In 2024 when Mubita sued Shipwiikineni over a WhatsApp voice note. In the recording, Shipwiikineni compared Mubita to being used “like toilet paper” to violate the party’s constitution.
The comments were made during internal debates within Swapo following the death of former president Hage Geingob in February 2024.
At the time, some party members argued that an extraordinary congress should be held to elect a new party president. Others said the party constitution did not require such a congress.
The case was heard in the Windhoek High Court before judge Eileen Rakow. She granted absolution from the instance in favour of Shipwiikineni after finding that Mubita had failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation.
In her ruling, Rakow said Mubita was offended by the voice note.
“It is also true that the broadcast indeed criticised the actions of the plaintiff and compared him to toilet paper,” Rakow said.
She said political speech receives stronger protection.
“What is very clear… is that when dealing with politicians and political expression of views, it becomes more difficult to pass the test of defamation, as there is a general expectation for politicians to have a thicker skin, and political commentary can at times be robust,” Rakow said.
The judge said public interest was central to the matter.
“Here, the public interest comes into play, as there is a right to debate political matters and make political comments. The plaintiff is clearly a public figure and a politician, and the comments made by the defendant relate to political matters within a political context. For these reasons, I find that the application for absolution must be upheld with costs,” Rakow ruled.
