The Windhoek Observer welcomes, without hesitation and without qualification, the urgent call by justice and labour relations minister Fillemon Wise Immanuel for residential security protection for all magistrates and prosecutors in Namibia.
This recommendation is long overdue. It is both tragic and sobering that it has taken the death of prosecutor Justine Shiweda to bring this matter into sharp national focus. No public servant tasked with upholding the law should have to pay with their life before the state recognises the gravity of the risks inherent in the administration of justice. Yet here we are, reminded in the harshest possible way that those who stand between order and lawlessness are themselves vulnerable.
The administration of justice is not an abstract ideal. It is delivered by human beings, magistrates who preside over volatile cases, prosecutors who confront hardened criminals, and court officials who make daily decisions that directly affect liberty, property and power. When these officials are threatened, intimidated or attacked, it is not merely an individual who is targeted. It is the rule of law itself that is placed under siege.
Minister Immanuel is correct: protecting those who deliver justice is essential for maintaining public trust and safeguarding the integrity of our institutions. Without security, there can be no independence. Without independence, there can be no justice.
The reports of rising threats in areas such as Grootfontein and Ondangwa should alarm every law-abiding Namibian. A climate where judicial officers look over their shoulders on their way home or worry about the safety of their families is a climate in which justice is compromised. Fear distorts judgement. Intimidation erodes resolve. The State cannot demand courage from its judicial officers while failing to provide the most basic protections.
This moment must also be understood in the broader context of what the late President Hage Geingob repeatedly referred to as “systems, processes and institutions”. Those words were not rhetorical flourishes. They were a reminder that nations are not sustained by personalities, but by durable frameworks that outlast individuals.
Security for magistrates and prosecutors must not be treated as a discretionary favour, a reactive gesture, or an ad hoc arrangement triggered by tragedy. It must be institutionalised and codified. Budgeted for. Implemented uniformly. The protection of judicial officers must form part of a coherent, system-wide security doctrine, not a patchwork of temporary fixes.
We are encouraged that this request aligns with a broader review of court security protocols. It was previously reported that while judges could access state-provided home guards, magistrates, who fall under the Magistrates’ Commission, were not immediately covered under the same provisions. Such discrepancies are unacceptable. Justice at the lower courts is no less significant than justice at the High or Supreme Court. In fact, for most Namibians, the magistrates’ courts are the face of the justice system.
Institutional parity in protection is not optional. It is a necessity.
However, while we welcome the minister’s recommendation, we must also address an uncomfortable but necessary truth: security systems are only effective if they are respected and utilised.
There is a troubling culture in parts of our public service that equates the use of official security or transport services with arrogance or elitism. This mindset must be dismantled.
Services such as official drivers, security details or home guards are not awarded to individuals as status symbols. They are assigned to positions because of the inherent risks and responsibilities attached to those offices. When a minister, deputy minister or senior public official chooses to drive themselves during office hours, despite having a designated driver, they are not demonstrating humility. They are undermining protocol.
When officials refuse protection or attempt to appear “ordinary” by rejecting services attached to their position, they expose not only themselves but also the integrity of the institutions they represent.
We have, in the past, witnessed ministers proudly taking public transport to the north of the country to “mingle with the masses”. While public engagement is commendable, the deliberate abandonment of security protocols for optics is reckless. Governance is not theatre. Leadership is not performance art.
The services attached to an office are there because risk assessments, institutional processes and state security frameworks have deemed them necessary. To disregard them is to disregard the very systems that President Geingob urged us to strengthen.
There is nothing noble about bypassing institutional safeguards. There is nothing humble about rejecting a driver assigned to your office. And there is certainly nothing admirable about placing oneself, or others, in unnecessary danger for the sake of political symbolism.
If we are serious about strengthening our institutions, then respect for protocol must be non-negotiable.
The death of Justine Shiweda must not become another moment of national outrage that fades into bureaucratic inertia. It must mark a turning point. A decisive commitment to the principle that those who enforce the law will be protected by the law.
Minister Immanuel’s urgent request is a step in the right direction. It signals recognition that the state has a duty of care toward its judicial officers. But recognition must now be matched by implementation, swift, comprehensive and uncompromising.
Namibia’s democracy rests not on speeches, but on functioning systems. Not on personalities, but on institutions. If we fail to protect those who uphold justice, we weaken the very foundations of our Republic. This gesture is long overdue. Let it not be too little, too late.
