Independent Patriots for
Change (IPC), leader, Panduleni
Itula has moved to refute
allegations of authoritarianism
following the resignation of party
members over alleged flawed internal
processes.
Addressing claims of an alleged
authoritarian leadership style
within the IPC, Itula said his party’s
sole authority is its constitution
which all members pledge to
uphold. “It is only the party constitution
on which all actions and
powers exercised by all members
of IPC are derived from,” Itula told
Confidente on Thursday.
The IPC was recently rocked
by a mass resignation of six senior
members from the its Kavango
East regional structures.
These members are: Patrick Kashera,
Richard Shindimba, Shiyave
Mwengere, Shimona Sandrina,
Kaveto Ambrosius, and Muremwa
Athanasius.
The most recent resignations,
along with past departures, fuelled
speculation about alleged authoritative
leadership, particularly given
the IPC’s relative youth, having
been founded in 2020.
In response, Itula questioned the
validity of these
claims, demanding
clarification on
specific actions or
conduct leading to
the perception of
authoritarianism.
“Please provide
me with the action
or conduct from
where the notion
of authoritative
seems to originate,”
he asked.
The IPC leader
emphasized that
all grievances are
handled according
to the IPC
constitution. He
added that members’
grievances
were addressed during a meeting
in Rundu, which the resigned
members chose not to attend.
“Resignations are directed to the
Head of IPC administration, our
National General Secretary. The
President of IPC played no role in
any alleged concerns so forming
the alleged basis of resignation,” he
clarified.
The six resigned members cited
concerns about the party’s internal
practices, but Itula maintains
that internal disputes are managed
constitutionally and through
proper channels.
NO OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
AND ITS ENTITLEMENT
Itula also addressed the title
“Leader of the Official Opposition.”
Speaking to IPC parliamentarians
in Windhoek on Thursday,
he clarified that he would not accept
the title, deeming it unconstitutional
and a misnomer. “There
shall be no speculations, put your
knives down,” he declared, addressing
rumors of potential withdrawals
from the IPC parliamentary
group.
Itula further clarified that there
is no legal basis for the office of the
“Leader of the Official Opposition”
in Namibia. He explained that the
Namibian Constitution outlines
government and state offices but
does not mention this position.
“Nowhere in the Namibian Constitution
is there any provision for
an office titled ‘Leader of the Official
Opposition,’” Itula explained.
According to Itula, if such a
position were necessary, it would
require a constitutional amendment
or legislation, as with the
Vice-President’s office. He emphasized
that no such legal framework
exists. “In a constitutional
democracy governed by the rule
of law, if an office is not provided
for in the supreme law or an Act
of Parliament, that office has no
legal existence,” Itula stated. “No
such amendment or law was ever
passed to establish a ‘Leader of the
Official Opposition.’ The absence
of any constitutional amendment
or explicit Act of Parliament for
this role is a glaring omission that
cannot be cured by executive action
alone.”