A national campaign against military conscription was launched in February by a broad front of Namibian organisations. They met in Khorixas in the Damaraland bantustan at a symposium, hosted by the Damara Youth Council.
The organisations included the Ai-Gams grouping, the Council of Churches in Namibia (CCN), Christian Democratic Action, the South West Africa National Union (SWANU-Progressives), Namibian Women's Voice the Namibian National Students' Organisation (NANSO) as well as to the Khorixas branch of SWAPO and an opposition group called Namibia Peace Plan 435. They agreed to draft a programme of common action and to reconvene within three months to table it.
Since 1980, in terms of Proclamation 198, military service has been compulsory for all Namibian males from the year they turn 18. Those resident in the Kavango and Ovambo bantustans were however generally excluded from the conscription process. The official explanation is that battalions are up to strength in those areas. A more likely reason is that strong local support for SWAPO would generate resistance to the call-up.
Although administrative aspects of conscription fall nominally under the South African-installed administration, the control and command of the South West Africa Territory Force falls directly under the South African Defence Force in Pretoria.
While South African conscripts can apply to do alternative service instead of military service in terms of the country's Defence Act (albeit under highly restrictive religious criteria), these provisions do not apply in Namibia. The position of conscientious objectors in the territory rests with the registration officer appointed by the administration whose only criterion in determining whether an objector qualifies is if 'in his opinion [the objector] belongs to a denomination whose members cannot participate in active combat'.
In practice he has ruled against both religious and political conscientious objectors, and several objectors have challenged his rulings in the courts. A ruling in the trial of Rashid Rooinasie, a Muslim charged with refusing to heed his call-up, is still pending after the case was referred to the Attorney-General in March 1987. Rooinasie argued that participating in an apartheid army would conflict with his Islamic religious conscience.
In March the Bloemfontein Appeal Court ruled against an application by political objector Erick Binga to have his call-up papers invalidated. The case was first heard in Windhoek in 1983. He applied for exemption on the basis of his support for SWAPO and the illegality of the South African occupation of Namibia. His defence argued that the international mandate granted to Pretoria to administer the territory specifically prohibited the conscription of the indigenous population. Binga's lawyers argued that the South African parliament in giving the State President powers to make legislation in Namibia, did not intend that these should conflict with obligations under the mandate. In their view his call-up orders had no legal basis.
A full bench of the Appeal Court ruled that there was no reference to South Africa's international obligations under the mandate in the South West Africa Constitution Act passed by the South African parliament. In terms of the Act the State President was empowered to make laws for Namibia, including the 1980 Proclamation on conscription. Therefore the question of the mandate did not arise. Binga's application was dismissed with costs.
In a related case an application by two SWAPO supporters for exemption from service dating back to January 1987 was rejected by the Windhoek Supreme Court in February. Alfons KOTJIPATI (23) and Edward AMPORO (21) both argued that they were morally incapable of fighting against SWAPO soldiers. They also argued that South Africa's occupation of Namibia was illegal, along similar lines to the arguments in the Binga case. In a later motion before the court the two argued that their call-up notices were also in conflict with the South African-installed administration's Bill of Fundamental Rights.
The judge found that in terms of a previous Supreme Court ruling 'an existing law which restricted a fundamental right remained in effect even after the Bill of Fundamental Rights was accepted'. The South African Defence Act was therefore not affected by the Bill of Rights. In terms of the Act there were no grounds to exempt the two.
As in previous years there were signs of resistance to conscription during the annual call-up in January. This followed a series of statements and meetings by opposition organisations rejecting conscription into the SADF.
