A judiciary that is seen to be impartial strengthens the rule of law and reinforces the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Photo: Getty Images
In recent years, Namibia’s courts have played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s legal landscape, presiding over high-profile cases on contentious issues.
These include the Digashu-Seiler-Lilles case, which addressed gender and LGBTQI+ rights, the ongoing case concerning the removal of the veterinary cordon fence separating northern Namibia from the central and southern regions (commonly known as the red line), as well as challenges related to the 2024 general and presidential elections. These cases, symbolic of Namibia’s evolving social and political landscape, raise critical questions about public trust in the courts and confidence in their ability to deliver timely, equitable justice.
Afrobarometer’s Round 10 survey, conducted in 2024, sheds light on the levels of trust and confidence that Namibians have in the courts. The findings indicate that local courts rank low as a preferred channel for resolving legal or other serious complaints, with respondents favouring the police or traditional authorities instead.
Namibians remain divided in their trust in the courts with just over half (52%) saying they trust the courts “somewhat” or “a lot”, while 44% express “little to no” trust. But, when it comes to confidence, the majority (61%) of citizens say they feel “somewhat” or “very confident” that people who are wronged can obtain justice in the courts, while 39% of citizens express low or no confidence in the courts’ ability to deliver justice.
Trust and confidence in the courts, while related, are distinct concepts and the Namibian survey data reflects this nuanced relationship and that people can experience them to different degrees. Simply put, trust is about believing in the fundamental fairness and integrity of the courts — whether they are doing the right thing — while confidence focuses on whether people think the courts can effectively do their job.
This means that people can distrust the courts but still think they can solve problems, can trust their intentions, but doubt their ability to effectively execute their mandate. The numbers show that some Namibians distrust the courts but still have some confidence in their ability to deliver justice.
This gap between trust and confidence matters because if trust is low, people question whether rulings are fair, are tainted by corruption or politically influenced. Additionally, if confidence in them delivering justice is low, people might avoid using the courts altogether, also fearing delays, high costs and other barriers.
The judiciary is in a precarious position and it needs the backing of the public when its authority is being brought into question. The Digashu-Seiler-Lilles case, while centred on important social issues, serves as a strong example of how limited public understanding and trust in judicial processes can be weaponised.
The deliberate attempt by parliament to undermine the courts’ authority, even after a clear exposition of the separation of powers, highlights the fragility of judicial independence in the face of public scepticism. It also demonstrates how political actors can exploit this distrust to advance their own agendas, regardless of the long-term consequences for democracy.
As we await the supreme court’s decision on the disputed 2024 presidential and general elections, this dynamic becomes even more dangerous. When the judiciary’s role is interfered with, or undermined, it does not just affect individual cases, it delegitimises the democratic process itself. If citizens perceive elections as not credible and courts as biased, they lose faith in the system’s ability to represent their will, which might explain the lack of trust in the institution.
Second, it can lead to social unrest and violence as disputed election results, coupled with a lack of trust in the courts, can easily ignite public anger and lead to confrontations.
Finally, it weakens the rule of law because, if court decisions are routinely disregarded and the general populace sees nothing wrong with this, the very foundation of a stable and just society is eroded creating a power vacuum that can be exploited by those seeking to undermine democratic institutions.
Conversely, fostering trust and confidence in the courts can have profoundly positive consequences. If citizens believe the judiciary is impartial and competent, they are more likely to accept its rulings, even when they disagree with them. This in turn strengthens the rule of law and reinforces the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It is then up to the judiciary to regain and foster the trust of its citizens by addressing the root causes of their negative views.
Namibia’s late founding father, Sam Shafishuna Nujoma, said it best: “Our achievement of independence imposes upon us a heavy responsibility, not only to defend our hard-won liberty, but also to set ourselves higher standards of equality, justice and opportunity for all.”
These words remain as relevant today as they were at independence. Public perception of the courts is complex because justice is not only about fair decisions but also about whether people believe in the system that delivers those decisions and both trust and confidence are essential for a strong and legitimate judiciary.
The Namibian judiciary is not only deciding individual cases, it is safeguarding the foundations of democracy, and trust in its fairness is not a luxury but a necessity. Without it, the courts and the society they serve stand on precarious ground. The judiciary must therefore be protected, respected and strengthened for the survival of Namibia’s democracy.
Rosevitha Ndumbu is a research associate at the Institute for Public Policy Research in Namibia.