Chika and Others v Commissioner General Raphael Amunyela: Namibia Correctional Facility and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 51 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 233 (10 May 2022)

Chika and Others v Commissioner General Raphael Amunyela: Namibia Correctional Facility and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 51 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 233 (10 May 2022)

The Correctional Service Act 9 of 2012 applies to the applicants as it was in force at the time of sentencing. Section 114(1) is not unconstitutional as it does not amount to unfair or unjust discrimination and does not impose a harsher penalty than that applicable at the time of the offence. The applicants are not entitled to parole consideration under the repealed statutes, and the application of section 114(1) is not retrospective in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Citation
[2022] NAHCMD 233
Parties
Applicant: Adour Mutalife Chika; Applicant: Martin Tubaundule; Applicant: Fabian Simiyasa; Respondent: Commissioner General Raphael Amunyela: Namibia Correctional Facility; Respondent: The Minister of Safety and Security (Charles Namoloh); Respondent: Commissioner Malobela: In the Office of the Commissioner General; Respondent: Oscar Kasuka Nunwa (Chairperson of the Internal Release Committee); Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
10 May 2022
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 51 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Application / Judgment After Hearing of Opposed Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Eligibility, Retrospective Application of Law, Discrimination, Equality Before the Law, Sentencing, Interpretation of Statutes
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Correctional Law Parole Eligibility Retrospective Application of Law Discrimination Equality Before the Law Sentencing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adour Mutalife Chika

Applicant

Martin Tubaundule

Applicant

Fabian Simiyasa

Applicant

Commissioner General Raphael Amunyela: Namibia Correctional Facility

Respondent

The Minister of Safety and Security (Charles Namoloh)

Respondent

Commissioner Malobela: In the Office of the Commissioner General

Respondent

Oscar Kasuka Nunwa (Chairperson of the Internal Release Committee)

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Application / Judgment After Hearing of Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which statute governs the applicants' eligibility for parole consideration: Prisons Act 1959, Prisons Act 1998, or Correctional Service Act 2012?
  2. 2 Does section 114(1) of the Correctional Service Act 2012 violate Article 10 (equality and non-discrimination) or Article 12(3) (non-retrospectivity of penalties) of the Constitution?
  3. 3 Is the application of section 114(1) to the applicants retrospective and thus unconstitutional?

Ratio Decidendi

The Correctional Service Act 9 of 2012 applies to the applicants as it was in force at the time of sentencing. Section 114(1) is not unconstitutional as it does not amount to unfair or unjust discrimination and does not impose a harsher penalty than that applicable at the time of the offence. The applicants are not entitled to parole consideration under the repealed statutes, and the application of section 114(1) is not retrospective in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.