BRIEFING PAPER: ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION IN NAMIBIA consultations with civil society took place. As a result, crucial elements of the Bill, such as the definition of terrorist activities and the powers to intercept communications, were never discussed either within the Parliamentary chambers or in any other public forums prior to the Bill’s tabling. ‘ The Bill was dealt with over only two days – November 20 in the National Assembly and November 28 in the National Council. ... for the second (in 2014) time government missed an opportunity to consult more broadly and in particular to discuss other aspects of the Bill that may have had constitutional implications. ’ Ignatius Shixwameni, MP for the All People’s Party, made clear that the Bill had not been made available to the House prior to its tabling – meaning that MPs had to process almost 40 pages of a complex piece of legislation and be able to make constructive and meaningful input while only having the time it took for the Minister to motivate the Bill to assess it (when presumably they should also have been listening to his speech). In total only seven MPs spoke during the debate on the Bill. In Namibia’s House of Review, the National Council, only one contribution was made. This was by MP Ndapewoshali Nangula Nambili, who briefly spoke about what the Bill intended to achieve before concluding by supporting it. The Bill was approved unanimously in both the National Assembly and National Council. Second attempt After the Prevention and Combating of Terrorist Activities Act became a law, just before Christmas 2012, little more was heard of it until the National Assembly was once again asked to urgently pass a revised version in June 2014. Apparently, the 2012 version of the Act did not meet all the international requirements. The Namibian reported at the time5 that National Assembly MPs had to approve the amendments to the law on the same day the amendment bill was tabled to ensure Namibia would not face international sanctions. A FATF meeting in France was due to review Namibia’s status on 22 June 2014, which meant the Bill had to be passed by 17 June 2014. According to the speech of Deputy Minister of Safety and Security Erastus Utoni, who motivated the changes, FATF had objected to two aspects of the 2012 law. Firstly, the clauses that exempted liberation movements from the law were not in line with the UN International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Secondly, FATF advised that use of a judicial process for freezing the assets of listed individuals, as set out in the 2012 law, was not in keeping with UN Security Council Resolutions 1267, 1988 and 1989 which required the immediate freezing of such assets. Deputy Minister Utoni said that the Governor of the Bank of Namibia, the Chairperson of the Security Commission, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, FATF, the implementing committees for UNCRs 1267, 1988, 1989, 1373, 1718 and 1737, and ESAAMLG were consulted over the amendments. However, for the second time government missed an opportunity to consult more broadly and in particular to discuss other aspects of the Bill that may have had constitutional implications. The main motivation for the urgency in bringing the amendments to Parliament was the fear of international opprobrium and possible sanctions if Namibia did not meet certain globally recognised standards. 5 Nam in sanctions scare by Shinovene Immanuel, The Namibian, June 20 2014 PAGE 3