POLICE spokesperson Kauna Shikwambi says claims of police brutality made by Namibian youths last week are vague and misleading.
This comes after some young people accused the police of using excessive force to disperse demonstrators on Independence Day during a recent protest against high levels of unemployment in the country.
The police arrested activists Dimbulukeni Nauyoma and Michael Amushelelo and member of parliament Inna Hengari.
Nauyoma and Amushelelo will wait until their next scheduled court appearance before deciding if they will proceed with a planned application to be granted bail. Defence lawyers Milton Engelbrecht and Samuel Kadhila informed magistrate Surita Savage in the Windhoek Magistrate's Court on Friday that they had instructions from Nauyoma and Amushelelo to wait with a planned bail application until they make their next appearance in court on 29 March.
The state agreed on Friday that Hengari could be granted bail in an amount of N$5 000, on condition that she may not take part in any illegal demonstrations. Shikwambi said the constitutional duties and mandates of the Namibian Police are to preserve the internal security of the country, and to maintain law and order.
"And that is exactly what the officers were doing," Shikwambi said.
She said it was disappointing that her colleagues were forced to deal with angry, unruly and uncooperative members of the public.
"Though the intentions of the demonstration were genuine to address unemployment, they failed to obey the directives and guidance as given by the inspector general and the court," Shikwambi said.
Shikwambi said police officers cannot be expected to give in to unruliness and lawlessness.
'So, if there is anyone who feels that the police used excessive force against them, let them come forth and report so that their cases can be investigated," Shikwambi said.
"There is a dire need for respect for the rule of law and, of course, respect between the public and the police," she said.
DEMONSTRATION STOPPED
The police's reaction follows after some protesters on Independence Day were allegedly being pushed around by the Namibian Police's Special Reserve Force on their way home after the police dispersed the crowd.
The demonstration was stopped by the police after police chief inspector general Joseph Shikongo on 17 March directed the organisers of the protest to reschedule the event to a date after Independence Day. Shikongo had done this, using sections of the Public Gathering Proclamation of 1989.
The activists had then unsuccessfully approached the High Court in a bid to proceed with the protests.
The demonstrations took place in the Ohangwena region, as well as at Walvis Bay and Keetmanshoop.
In the Windhoek demonstration, Amushelelo, Nauyoma and Hengari were arrested.
They have been charged with counts of public violence, malicious damage to property and incitement to public violence, with the state alleging that they "marched about the streets and created a riot", defied lawful police instructions, and damaged a police vehicle.
Lawyer Kadhila Amoomo, who is part of the legal team representing Amushelelo, Nauyoma and Hengari, said shortly after the arrests on Independence Day that the right to protest can be located in Article 21 (1) (d) of the Namibian Constitution.
"It finds meaning in the freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms. The Public Gathering Proclamation of 1989 continues to haunt our democratic space.
"This is to be expected because the proclamation was never designed to function in a constitutional dispensation. "It was designed to combat anti-apartheid programmes and harass freedom fighters before independence.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"That is why the activists approached the High Court to fight for that right. That being said, my clients accepted the ruling of the High Court with respect," Amoomo said.
He said this was the most responsible thing to do, because the court pronounced itself and someone had to inform the gathered unemployed youth.
"What transpired thereafter is a series of police brutality events. At first, they were ordered to disperse and they complied with that order as that was their intention anyway, because of the court order.
"It's almost as if the police were disappointed or surprised that the activists complied with the order, because as soon as they left, the police pursued everyone, harassed them and arbitrarily arrested them," the lawyer said.
