- 10 -
APPENDIX
Individual opinion of Abdalfattah Amor (dissenting)
I cannot subscribe to the Committee’s finding of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant,
for the following reasons:
1.
In article 3 of its Constitution, Namibia, which had declared its independence
on 21 March 1991, made English the country’s official language out of a legitimate concern to
improve the chances of integration. It was thought that granting any privilege or particular status
to one of the many other minority or tribal languages in the country would be likely to encourage
discrimination and be an obstacle to the building of the nation. Since then, all languages other
than English have been on an equal footing under the Constitution: no privileges, and no
discrimination. It is the same for all languages, including Afrikaans, the introduction of which
into Namibia was tied up with the history of colonization and which, in any case, ceased to be
used as an official language on 21 March 1991.
2.
Article 3 (3) of the Constitution of Namibia permits the use of other languages in
accordance with legislation adopted by Parliament. No such legislation, which in any case could
have no effect on the use of English as the official language, has yet been adopted. The
guarantees it might have provided or the restrictions it might have introduced have not been
decreed and as the situation is the same for everyone, no distinction could have been established
legislatively in either a positive or a negative sense. Naturally this also applies to the Afrikaans
language.
3.
The use of minority languages as such has not been limited, far less questioned, at any
level other than the official level. In their personal relationships, among themselves or
with others, people speaking the same language are able to use that language without
interference - which would be difficult to imagine anyway - from the authorities. In other words,
there is nothing to limit the use of Afrikaans as the language of choice of the Basters in their
relations between themselves or with others who know the language and agree to communicate
with them in that language.
4.
Whatever legislative weaknesses there may have been so far, the right to use one’s
mother tongue cannot take precedence, in relations with official institutions, over the official
language of the country, which is, or which is intended to be, the language of all and the
common denominator for all citizens. The State may impose the use of the common language on
everyone; it is entitled to refuse to allow a few people to lay down the law. In other words,
everyone is equal in relation to the official language and any linguistic privileges - unless they
apply to all, in which case they would no longer be privileges - would be unjustifiable and
discriminatory. The Basters complain that they are not able to use their mother tongue for
administrative purposes or in the courts. However, they are not the only ones in this situation.
The situation is exactly the same for everyone speaking the other minority languages. In support
of their complaint, the Basters provide a copy of a circular issued by the Regional Commissioner
of the Central Region of Rehoboth dated 4 March 1992, in which, according to their counsel,
“the use of Afrikaans during telephone conversations with regional public authorities is
explicitly excluded”. This circular, although not very skilfully drafted, actually says something
else and, in any case, certainly says more than that. It deserved closer attention from the
Committee, in order to avoid the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees and to prevent the
specific problem from hiding the general solution. In that connection, it is important to