THE advent of social media brought with it a lot of social, psychological and behavioural dynamics, particularly the manner in which we interact with one another on daily basis in the Namibian house.
Coupled with this rise, is the birth of faceless social media litigations which have become the juror of accused persons, particularly public office bearers to iniquitous, unwarranted, and unsolicited trials with no due consideration of whether they are guilty or innocent.
Ironically, this premature ‘judicial’ measure which is not different to bush justice ignores and spits in the face of all tenets of the rule of law.
One would argue that social media litigation would take centre-stage in a nation where the judicial system has failed monumentally or compromised. This could also be the case only if the judicial system is corrupt and working in cohorts with culprits on the wrong side of the law. However, this is not the case with Namibia, which up to now has a functioning judiciary.
It is also surprising that social media trials are rife in a nation that doesn’t have a grave constitutional crisis in which corrupt politicians protect each other in manipulating the rule of law.
Namibia essentially has a functioning democracy and judicial system which is receiving overwhelming political will to deal with issues of corruption and the perception thereof.
With the transparency mantra key to governments operations, the First Family has set the precedence, by declaring their assets and opening the doors of transparency in the current administration which accounts for corruption even when the offenders are top public servants.
Namibia has a high level of transparency to an extent that President Hage Geingob has in the recent past dealt decisively with corruption where suspicious and controversial capital projects where spiked and or cancelled in pursuit of saving the public purse from theft.
This did not end here as the presidency again last month summoned a couple of Cabinet ministers whose ministries attracted allegations of corruption who were summoned to respond to the President on the respective.
What is however interesting is, despite the safe and just atmosphere in the country to handle matters of graft, fraud and other administrative concerns; social media jurors persist with social media litigation.
These rogue jurors in public opinion courts seem to ignore the political, administrative and legal processes which are instituted when cases meriting such actions arise.
With that in mind, it was interesting to note how social media political protagonists have been pre-empting the judicial outcome of a pre-trial process by accusing Geingob of protecting certain individuals even before the trials had started.
In the face of growing transparency and the visible attempts thereof, it is only fair to say, it is time for the rule of law to be allowed to prevail instead of unwarranted social media trial
Confidente. Lifting the Lid. Copyright © 2015