Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2019
This article considers the current sentencing purposes in Namibia. It discusses the legislator's failure to articulate these purposes, leaving this to the judiciary, and identifies the dangers that arise from this legislative lacuna. It establishes that current sentencing purposes are fundamentally premised upon a retributivist philosophy, transplanted into Namibia during the colonial period. The article thus advocates for sentencing reform, aimed at restoring a paradigm based on African values. It does so by analysing African indigenous justice systems, using Ubuntu as an Afrocentric value. The article establishes how Ubuntu is contemporarily mirrored by restorative notions of justice that prioritize victims, offenders and the community, thereby asserting sentencing purposes that promote reconciliation, reparation and offender re-integration. In juxtaposing this with other sentencing purposes, the article critiques comparable jurisdictions that have recently incorporated restorative justice and proposes a set of draft sentencing purposes in the appendix.
DPhil in law candidate, University of Oxford. This article is based on the author's dissertation submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements of the MSc in criminology and criminal justice at the University of Oxford. The dissertation was subsequently shortlisted in the top ten UK masters dissertations for the John Sunley Prize to celebrate impact and excellence in post-graduate research into penal issues in the UK. The author is grateful to Professor Liora Lazarus, who supervised the earlier dissertation and provided careful guidance, and Professor Julian Roberts for invaluable input to develop this article. The author also thanks Professor Sandra Fredman and members of the Oxford Human Rights Research Group for their feedback on earlier drafts.
1 The laws and academic commentary on the issue of sentencing (for example the Namibian Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, Act No 51 of 1977) employ the terms “sentencing” and “punishment” interchangeably. While a distinction can be made, for the purposes of this article, sentencing and punishment are employed as synonyms.
2 Easton, S and Piper, C Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice (3rd ed, 2012, Oxford University Press) at 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Walker, N Why Punish? (1987, Oxford University Press) at 25Google Scholar.
6 Robinson, P Intuitions of Justice and the Utility of Desert (2013, Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Roberts, J and Von Hirsch, A “Legislating the purposes and principles of sentencing” In Roberts, J and Cole, D (eds) Making Sense of Sentencing (1999, University of Toronto Press) 48 at 49Google Scholar.
8 Von Hirsch, A, Ashworth, A and Roberts, J Principled Sentencing (3rd ed, 2009, Hart)Google Scholar.
9 Roberts and Von Hirsch “Legislating the purposes”, above at note 7 at 50.
10 Ibid.
11 Mapaure, C, Ndeunyema, N, Masake, H, Weyulu, F and Shaparara, L The Law of Pre-Trial Criminal Procedure in Namibia (2014, University of Namibia Press) at 77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 The Act, sec 343.
13 The Constitution, preamble and art 23.
14 Terblanche, S “Sentencing in Namibia: The main changes since independence” (2013) 26/1 South African Journal of Criminal Justice 21 at 22Google Scholar.
15 The Stock Theft Amendment Act, 2004. See Daniel v Attorney-General 2011 (1) NR 330 (HC); Kamahere v Namibia 2016 (4) NR 919 (SC); S v Gaingob 2018 (1) NR 211 (SC).
16 The Constitution, art 66.
17 For an extensive exposition of the Act's history, see Mapaure et al The Law of Pre-Trial, above at note 11 at 1–15.
18 This includes customary law, given customary law's recognition as being on a par with common law. See the Constitution, art 66.
19 Death sentences are unconstitutional: id, art 6.
20 Whipping was declared unconstitutional in Ex Parte Attorney-General: In re Corporal Punishment by Organs of State 1991 NR 178 (SC).
21 In respect of pre-constitutionalism, see: R v Swanepoel 1945 AD 444; S v Khumalo 1984 (3) SA 327 (A). In respect of post-constitutionalism, see: S v Tcoeib 1992 NR 198 (HC). See also Daniel, above at note 15; Kamahere, above at note 15.
22 S v Orina [2011] NAHC 137 (20 May 2011), para 2 (unreported decision of the Namibian High Court).
23 Ashworth, A and Roberts, J “Sentencing: Theory, principle, and practice” in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (5th ed, 2012, Oxford University Press) 886 at 867Google Scholar.
24 Ibid.
25 Mapaure, C “Philosophising about and making sense of crime and criminality in Namibia through the deterrence and rational choice theory” (2013) 1/1 University of Namibia Students Law Review 1 at 12Google Scholar.
26 1991 NR 356 (HC) at 357. See also S v Nkasi [2010] NAHC 9 (24 March 2010), para 3; S v Sezuni [2008] NAHC 91 (22 September 2008), paras 9–10.
27 Ashworth, A Sentencing and Criminal Justice (2010, Cambridge University Press) at 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 2011 (1) NR 330 HC.
29 Prosecutor General v Daniel and Others (SA 15/2011) [2012] NASC (28 July 2017).
30 Roberts and Von Hirsch ”Legislating the purposes”, above at note 7 at 75. House arrest is, however, not in use in Namibia.
31 The Constitution, arts 6 and 8.
32 Bentham, J Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1823, Pickering and Wilson)Google Scholar; Andenaes, J “Does punishment deter crime” (1968) 11 Criminal Law Quarterly 76Google Scholar.
33 Brandt, above at note 26 at 357.
34 Ashworth and Roberts “Sentencing”, above at note 23 at 868.
35 For example, chapter 6 (offences and penalties) of Namibia's recently enacted Electoral Act, 2014 (Act No 5 of 2014).
36 von Hirsch, A Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research (1999, Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar.
37 Gaingob, above at note 15, para 80.
38 Walker Why Punish, above at note 5 at 53.
39 Easton and Piper Sentencing and Punishment, above at note 2 at 379; Gaingob, above at note 15, para 80.
40 Act No 9 of 2012.
41 Id, sec 3(c) provides: “The functions of the Correctional Service are … as far as practicable, to apply such rehabilitation programmes and other meaningful and constructive activities to sentenced offenders that contribute to their rehabilitation and successful reintegration into [sic] community as law abiding citizens.”
42 Lazarus, L Contrasting Prisoners’ Rights (2004, Oxford University Press) at 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 S v Van Wyk (SA 94/2011) [2012] NASC (15 November 2012), paras 26–27.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Terblanche, S “The discretionary effect of mitigating and aggravating factors: A South African case study” in Roberts, J (ed) Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing (2011, Cambridge University Press) 261 at 264Google Scholar.
47 Ibid.
48 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) at 540.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 “World prison brief: Namibia”, available at: <https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/namibia> (last accessed 17 September 2019).
52 Office of the Ombudsman Human Rights Baseline Study Report in Namibia (2013, University of Namibia) at 102.
53 Ibid. US Department of State Namibia 2014 Human Rights Report, available at: <https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/236600.pdf> (last accessed 29 August 2019).
54 Ashworth Sentencing, above at note 27 at 99.
55 Dror, Y “Values and the law” (1957) 17/4 Antioch Review 440CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elias, T The Nature of African Customary Law (1954, Manchester University Press)Google Scholar.
56 Lazarus Contrasting Prisoners’ Rights, above at note 42 at 11.
57 Ashworth, A “Criminal justice and deserved sentences” (1989) 36 Criminal Law Review 340 at 341Google Scholar.
58 Cited in Roberts, J and Keisjer, K “Democratising punishment: Sentencing, community views and values” (2014) 16/4 Punishment & Society 474 at 477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 In re Corporal Punishment, above at note 20, para 2.
60 African Charter, art 17(3).
61 The Constitution, preamble.
62 Id, art 21(1)(c) provides for the right to the freedom to practise any religion and to manifest such practice.
63 Id, art 66(1).
64 Kuwali, D “Decoding Afrocentrism: Decolonizing legal theory” in Onazi, O (ed) African Legal Theory and Contemporary Problems (2014, Springer) 71 at 72Google Scholar.
65 The Constitution, art 140.
66 Klare, K “Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism” (1998) 14 South African Journal of Human Rights 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Asante, M Afrocentricity (1988, Africa World Press) at viiiGoogle Scholar.
68 Mapaure, C “Reinvigorating African values for SADC” (2011) 1/1 SADC Law Journal 148 at 154Google Scholar.
69 Hoebe, E The Law of Primitive Man (1954, Harvard University Press)Google Scholar. Philosophers have long propelled this myth of Africa. George Hegel, for instance, is quoted as having held the view that: “Africa is no historical part of the world; it has no movement or development to exhibit … Egypt … does not belong to the African Spirit”: T Obenga “Egypt: Ancient history of African philosophy” in K Wiredu A Companion to African Philosophy (2004, Blackwell Publishing Ltd) 31 at 33.
70 Mapaure “Reinvigorating African values”, above at note 68 at 149.
71 Elias, O The Nature of African Customary Law (1956, Manchester University Press) at 260Google Scholar.
72 African Charter, art 5; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, art 1.
73 Ongyango, P African Customary Law (2013, Law Africa Publishers)Google Scholar.
74 Elechi, O, Morris, S and Schauer, E “Restoring justice (Ubuntu): An African perspective” (2010) 20/1 International Criminal Justice Review 73 at 74Google Scholar.
75 Id at 73.
76 Id at 75.
77 Ibid.
78 Gade, C “What is Ubuntu? Different interpretations among South Africans of African descent” (2012) 31/3 South African Journal of Philosophy 484 at 486CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kamwangamalu, N “Ubuntu in South Africa: A sociolinguistic perspective to a pan-African concept” (1999) 13/2 Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies 24 at 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Louw, D “The African concept of Ubuntu and restorative justice” in Sullivan, D and Tifft, L (eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice (2008, Routledge) 161Google Scholar.
79 Diop, Sheik A Pre-Colonial Black Africa: A Comparative Study of the Political and Social Systems of Europe and Black Africa: From Antiquity to the Formation of Modern States (1988, Columbia University Press) at 141Google Scholar.
80 Within a population of approximately 2.5 million people, there are 13 distinct ethnic groups and 52 traditional authorities, each with its own customs and law: Hinz, MO “Traditional governance and African customary law” in Horn, N and Bösl, A (eds) Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Namibia (2008, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) 59Google Scholar.
81 Cornell, D “Transitional justice versus substantive revolution” in Cornell, D Law and Revolution in South Africa (2014, Fordham University Press) 1 at 1Google Scholar.
82 Himonga, C, Taylor, M and Pope, A “Reflections on judicial views of Ubuntu” (2013) 16/5 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 372 at 374Google Scholar.
83 Faris, J “African customary law and common law in South Africa” (2015) 10/2 International Journal of African Renaissance Studies 171 at 178Google Scholar.
84 Mokgoro, J “Ubuntu and the law in South Africa” (1998) 1/1 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1 at 2–3Google Scholar.
85 Ongyango African Customary Law, above at note 73 at 153–57.
86 Mapaure “Reinvigorating African values”, above at note 68 at 152.
87 “Since time immemorial” is the formula used in the traditional context to ascertain legitimacy in an African traditional context: Hinz “Traditional governance”, above at note 80 at 59.
88 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 75; Kamwangamalu “Ubuntu in South Africa”, above at note 78 at 26.
89 Ibid.
90 DW Nabudere “Ubuntu philosophy: Memory and reconciliation” (2005) at 1, available at: <http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/4521/3621.pdf?...1> (last accessed 29 August 2019). See also Gade, C “Restorative justice and the South African Truth and Reconciliation process” (2013) 32/1 South African Journal of Philosophy 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
91 Elias The Nature of African Customary Law, above at note 71 at 153.
92 Bennet, T “Ubuntu: An African equity” (2011) 14/4 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 30 at 35Google Scholar.
93 S v Myburgh 2008 (2) NR 592 (SC).
94 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC), para 308.
95 Id, para 224.
96 Holleman, J “An anthropological approach to Bantu law” (1949) 10 Rhodes-Livingstone Journal 51Google Scholar; Cobbah, J “African values and the human rights debate: An African perspective” (1987) 9/3 Human Rights Quarterly 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
97 Kamatali, J “The challenge of linking international criminal justice and national reconciliation: The case of the ICTR” (2003) 16 Leiden Journal of International Law 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
98 Nabudere “Ubuntu philosophy”, above at note 90 at 2.
99 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 75.
100 Namibia is one of the 54 member states of the African Union, which was established in 2002 through the adoption of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, thereby replacing its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity, which had been established in 1963.
101 African Charter, preamble, arts 17 and 27. See also Viljoen, F International Human Rights Law in Africa (2nd ed, 2012, Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
102 Idowu, W “African philosophy of law: Transcending the boundaries between myth and reality” (2004) 4/2 Enter-Text Journal 52 at 64–65Google Scholar.
103 Id at 65.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid.
106 Cited in Walgrave, L “Restorative justice: An alternative for responding to crime?” in Shoham, S, Beck, O and Kett, M The International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice (2008, CRC Press) 613 at 615Google Scholar.
107 Amadi, E Ethics in Nigerian Culture (1982, Heinemann) at 18Google Scholar; Braithwaite, J “Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts” (1999) 25 Crime and Justice 1 at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, it is notable that Daly disputes this as a “mythical, extraordinary claim”: Daly, K “Restorative justice: The real story” 2002 4/1 Punishment and Society 55 at 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
108 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74.
109 Menkel-Meadow, C “Restorative justice: What is it and does it work?” (2007) 3 Annual Review Law Social Science 10 at 10.1–10.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 Walgrave “Restorative justice”, above at note 106 at 621.
111 Above at note at 48.
112 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 75.
113 Ibid.
114 Id at 77.
115 Daly “Restorative justice”, above at note 107 at 62.
116 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 77.
117 Ibid.
118 Faris “African customary law”, above at note 83 at 181–82.
119 Elias The Nature, above at note 71 at 176–77.
120 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 79.
121 Id at 78.
122 Braithwaite, J Crime, Shame and Reintegration (1989, Cambridge University Press) at 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
123 Id at 84–86.
124 Id at 97.
125 Id at 178.
126 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 80.
127 Desmond Tutu rather simplistically dichotomizes African and western criminal justice by stating that “western justice is largely retributive. The African understanding is far more restorative - not so much to punish as to redress or restore a balance that has been knocked askew”: Clamp, K and Doak, J “More than words: Restorative justice concepts in transitional setting” (2012) 12 International Criminal Law Review 339 at 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, Daly and others extensively criticize this binary reductionism as mythical, arguing that proponents “seem to assume that an ideal justice system should be of one type only that it should be pure and not contaminated by or mixed with others”: Daly “Restorative justice”, above at note 107 at 62.
128 Elias The Nature, above at note 71 at 287.
129 Id at 262.
130 Braithwaite Crime, Shame, above at note 122 at 178.
131 Kuwali “Decoding Afrocentrism”, above at note 64 at 82.
132 Elias The Nature, above at note 71 at 262.
133 Walgrave “Restorative justice”, above at note 106 at 645.
134 Daly, K “Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative justice” in Strang, H and Braithwaite, J (eds) Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice (2000, Ashgate) 33 at 40Google Scholar.
135 Ibid.
136 Cited in G Johnstone “Restorative justice: A form of punishment?” in Von Hirsch, Ashworth and Roberts Principled Sentencing, above at note 8, 198 at 209.
137 Ibid.
138 Elechi et al “Restoring justice”, above at note 74 at 80.
139 Ibid.
140 Kamba, W “Comparative law: A theoretical framework” (1974) 23 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 485 at 495CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
141 Id at 491.
142 Lazarus Contrasting Prisoners’ Rights, above at note 42 at 3.
143 S Terblanche The Guide to Sentencing in South Africa (2016, Lexis-Nexis).
144 Findlay, M “Decolonising restoration and justice: Restoration in transitional cultures” (2000) 39/4 The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
145 Hess, J “Addressing the overrepresentation of the Maori in New Zealand's criminal justice system at the sentencing stage: How Australia can provide a model for change” (2011) 20/1 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 180Google Scholar.
146 Act No 9 of 2002, read together with New Zealand's Victims’ Rights Act, 2002.
147 Roberts, J “An analysis of the statutory statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing in New Zealand” (2003) 36/3 Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 254Google Scholar.
148 Id at 255.
149 Ibid.
150 Similar sentencing purposes exist under sec 7(1) of the Capital Territory Crimes (Sentencing) Act, 2005 (Australia).
151 Roberts “An analysis of the statutory statement”, above at note 147 at 267.
152 Id at 257. Sec 8 of the Sentencing Act also contains ten principles of sentencing.
153 On the application of restorative justice, see for example: R v Martin (2017) NZHC 1571 (7 July 2017), para 16; Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453, para 19.
154 Sec 25.
155 Roberts “An analysis of the statutory statement”, above at note 147 at 257.
156 As amended by Sentencing Amendment Act, 2007, sec 7.
157 Young, W and King, A “Sentencing practice and guidance in New Zealand” (2010) 22/4 Federal Sentencing Reporter 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
158 See text to note 151 above.
159 Roberts “An analysis of the statutory statement”, above at note 147 at 249.
160 Roberts, J, Crutcher, N and Verbrugge, P “Public attitudes to sentencing in Canada: Exploring recent findings” (2007) 49/1 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 75 at 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
161 Interestingly, sec 718(2)(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code introduces a “remedial provision designed to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing”. See R v Ipeelee [2012] 1 SCR 433; R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688.
162 Roberts et al “Public attitudes to sentencing”, above at note 160 at 82.
163 Ibid.
164 Id at 97.
165 du Pisani, A, Kossler, R and Lindeke, W (eds) The Long Aftermath of War: Reconciliation and Transition in Namibia (2010, ArnoldBergstraesser-Institut)Google Scholar.
166 Ashworth Sentencing and Criminal Justice, above at note 27 at 78.
167 In addition to New Zealand and Canada, the proposal borrows from sentencing reforms in England and Wales and Israel. Israeli reforms are reflected in the Penal Law (Amendment No 113) (2012) 2337 LSI 170, which is reproduced and translated into English in Roberts, J and Gazal-Ayal, O “Sentencing reform in Israel: An analysis of the statutory reforms of 2012” (2013) 46/3 Israel Law Review 479CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
168 Ashworth Sentencing and Criminal Justice, above at note 27 at 78.
