Interpretation of the Constitution (Chapter 5 ofthe Namibian Constitution deals with the protection of Fundamental Haman Rights and Freedoms. Anicle 5 provides for the protection of funcamental rights and fe dom, by The finedamental is and freedoms enshrined n this Chapter shal be respected and upheld by the Executive: Legislcure and Judictary anda organs of the Government and tts agencies and, where applicable 10 them, by all naturel and legal persons in Namibia, ‘ad shall be enforceable bythe Courts in the manner herinafter prescribed. The wording ofthe article Sis clearly indicative ofthe fat that the Bill of Rights is to be appt ‘oth horizontally (otween private persons) and vertically (between individuals and organs of the State}, The Bill of Righis in the interim South Afican Constitution was interpreted to mean that it 4id not have a general horizontal application, but that “t might md should infcace the como Jaw ast governed cations botween individual, The basic rights ar largely. Sut not exclusively, derived from the Universal Declaration of Human 22 v Muandingh?’, the Nanibian Supreme Court dismissed an Righis 1948" In Minister of Det appeal azninst the finding of the Court a quo in terms of which it was held thatthe Republic of Namibia was the successor to the administration ofthe Republic of South Affice in Namibia, aid lence liable for lists eaused by South AStcan organs io this ese the wounding ofthe plait’ boy South Af. soldiers, in Nanibia prior to independence, Aisle 140 (3) does not lint the ic 140 te ony those eration oF A ofthe predecessor Goverument which were awfilly performed tn coming to this decison, the Court approves the cium in Sv Acheson” that Pu Plessis ané Othsts De Klerk and Another 1996 (3) SA $50(CC) as per headnote Nala, G J, Coustiional Rights in Namibia: A Comparative Amlyss wth Intemational Human rs Juta & Co, Keninyn, 199% 1682(2) SA 388 (NSC) As perheadioie SWOT IHC) at 10 AB(De Constitution of 2 nation 18 not simply a statute which mechanically defines the structures of governmenn and the relations between the government and the poverned. It 1s “miror reflecting the national soul”, the identifcaton ofthe ideals and aspirations Of @ nation: the articulation of the values bonding ts people and displ is govwrament. The spirit and tenor of the Consntation wast thersfore preside over and permeate the processes ofjdicialsterpretation ana judctaldiseretion| ‘Phe Court held that the Namibian Constitution must be purposively interpreted to avoid the ‘austerity of tabulated legalism’ as an interpretation of article 149 (3) as fimiting the operation of nything done” to acts lwfily dane would asite 10 the words used in the @ Constitution a narrow and pedantic mesning, which is avoidigg a construction that 38 “mos the words Ihonfisial to the widest possible amplinude", The special charnersies of 4 Constation hea rendering an interpretation of any of is provisions should not be ignored, 25 it would not be enerous and purposeful “The Namibian Constitution has.a Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms which must be protected. Thesé ffeedonis and rights are framed in a broad and ample style and are intemational in character. Ia their atepretation they call for the application of international human rights norms", which distinguishes the Consiution fiom ordinary Acts of Parliament” “The purposive approach 10 atemprstation requires a value judgement to be made ~ ‘rts however a value judgement which requires objectively 10 be articulated and tdenfed ‘regan being had 10 the contemporary norms, aspirations, expectaions and senuittes of the Namibian people as expressed i ts matonal institutions and its Constitution, an further having vegaed to the emerging consensus of values i a chilised imenationa! community (of which Namibia 18 a par) which Namibians share. This ie not a state exeretse. It ts a continually © Movauingi, supra, page 362 AB. 1 Op. et, pase 202 FT Op. ct, page 364 ABevolving chmamie. What may have been acceptable asa just form of punishment some decades “0g0, may appear to be manufstty infaman or degrading tay. Yesterday's orthdony might ‘appear to be today's heresy" (Ges also the separate cowunents ume by Berher CJ th EX Pat Attomey General, Nambia: bs #2 Corporal Punishment 1991 NR 178 (SC) The vahics may not be equated with pubic opinion. Publi opinion may be relevant, but is not & substiute for the Court to interpret the Constitution, because otherwise the protection of rights ‘may as well be left to Patiament, whose members are the representatives of the public Furthermore, the duty of the court i to protect minorities and eutcasts which would not be done iT the cour isto how to puble opinion. ‘However, in intenpreting provisions in a costtution containing abil of rights the Cour isnot eat to go overboard and read into that provision what my not be in compliance with the language of the section". “It is proper to remember that when construing provisions in a ‘Constitution the words used should camry thelr ordinary mennrg. To read into them extancous ‘meanings through compating their meaning with words used fan oxdinary Act of Pariment, such a the Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act, resus, in out respectil view, inthe distortion ofthe meaning of art 21 (1) (a) and (2) ofthe Constitution.” ‘The Coust omy have regard to the politica history in interpreting the text ofthe Constitution, The xexpretation of the Constitution aust aso be dane in context, not only with regard to history, tout aso with regard to other constitutional provisions and the provisions ofthe Bill oF Rishts. In this reeard, in Sv Malosanyane™ the Constitutional Court wseé the right to equality to support Ex Parte Astomey General, Namibian ¢ Corpora Punishmens by Organs o 5 (Nm) at 91 DF ® Sw Nassar 1994 (5) BCLR 00 (Nm) at 70 CD. Knusst'y Minister of Hons ABzits 1996, ) SA 965 (NSC) 1 974 FG * 195 (6) BCLR 665 (CC) at Pata 10