Category: Reform

Introduction

Due to the society changes the laws are bound to change.[footnoteRef:1] Law reform is a way of updating laws so that they reflect the current values of the society people change and, an example is the gay marriages, back in the years gay marriage way was a punishable penalty in some countries where as today this is now a norm and gay marriage is legalized.[footnoteRef:2] The law reform can simplify the law by making it simpler or eliminate some faults in the law.[footnoteRef:3]The law reform and development commission in Namibia is a legal organization for researching and recommendation for changing of laws in Namibia.[footnoteRef:4] [1: Butt ,P : Nygh P et al,2002.Enyclopaedic Australian legal dictionary. Available at WWW.2.lexrsnexis.com.au:2002] [2: (ibid.).] [3: (ibid.).] [4: 1999.Hubbard,D .Gender and law reform in Namibia]

Establishment of the law reform commission in Namibia

The law reform and development commission act is a government commission established in 1991 and brought into force on the fifteenth of July 1992 in Namibia, which creates reports making recommendations for legal reforms. [footnoteRef:5]It was established to do away with the policies, red lines and other legacies of the apartheid government.[footnoteRef:6] The law was to undo the definitions and divisions of the past.[footnoteRef:7] The required construction of a fair society that called for laws that needed to be responsive to the needs of historically disadvantaged Namibians.[footnoteRef:8] This is how the law reform and development commission came about.[footnoteRef:9] The LRDC was an acknowledgement that any meaningful change and fulfilment of constitutional values and aspirations will have to be addressed through an institutional mechanism for changing laws that cause inequality and division before independence.[footnoteRef:10] The LRDC, however is not a law maker.[footnoteRef:11] The power to make law belongs the national assembly.[footnoteRef:12] [5: 1991. Law Reform and Development Commission Act 29.] [6: 3 November 2017. The Namibian Newspapers, Column 3.] [7: (ibid.).] [8: (ibid.).] [9: (ibid.).] [10: (ibid.).] [11: (ibid.).] [12: (ibid.).]

Composition

According to the Law reform and development commission act 29 of 1991 document

The Commission consist of-

• a) A chairperson appointed by the president after consultation with the Minister[footnoteRef:13] [13: 1991.Law Reform and Development Commission Act 29]
• b) The Ombudsman;[footnoteRef:14] [14: (ibid.).]
• c) One legal practitioner as defined in section 1 of the legal practitioner Act 1995(Act No.15 of 1995),appointed by the consultation with the law society of Namibia established by section 40 of that Act;[footnoteRef:15] [15: 1991. Law Reform and Development Commission Act 29.]
• d) One staff member of the ministry of justice nominated by the Minister and appointed by the President.[footnoteRef:16] [16: (ibid.).]
• e) One person who is in full-time employment in a lecturing capacity at the faculty of law of the University of Namibia ,appointed by the President after consultation with the vice-Chancellor of the University;[footnoteRef:17] [17: (ibid.).]
• f) Not more than three persons appointed by the president after consultation with the Vice-Chancellor of the University.[footnoteRef:18] [18: (ibid.).]

• (A) the commission shall elect one of its members to be the deputy chairperson of the commission.[footnoteRef:19] [19: (ibid.).]
• (b) the deputy chairperson shall exercise all the powers and perform all the and functions conferred or imposed upon the chairperson by or under this act during a vacancy in the office of the chairperson or during any period when the chairperson is absent or is otherwise unable to perform his or her duties as chairperson.[footnoteRef:20] [20: (ibid.).]

The chairperson of the commission:

• (a) Holds office and performs his or her functions under this act in a full time capability and [footnoteRef:21] [21: (ibid.).]
• (b) Shall not hold or be engaged in any other remunerative employment or occupation while serving on the commission.[footnoteRef:22] [22: (ibid.).]

Amongst The Powers and Duties Of The Law Reform Commission According To The Law Reform And Development Commission act

May invite and receive any suggestion relating to its objects from any person or body and may include such suggestions in programs.[footnoteRef:23] [23: 1991. Law Reform and Development Commission Act]

The commission shall, as far as possible in order of priority, examine the matters appearing on any program as approved or amendedent by the ministers and may for that purpose consult any person or body, whether by submission of study documents prepared by the commission or in any other manner.[footnoteRef:24] [24: (ibid.).]

If after examining any matter the commission is of the opinion that legislation ought to be enacted with regard to the matter, the commission shall prepare draft legislation for that purpose[footnoteRef:25] [25: (ibid.).]

Functions of the law commission

Provide secretarial and functional support to the law reform and development commission (LRDC) who has the mandate to recommend, the repeal of outdated and unnecessary laws.[footnoteRef:26] The consolidation and/or organization of branches of Namibian law.[footnoteRef:27]The enactment of laws that promotes Human Rights.[footnoteRef:28] The harmonization of customary law and common law with statutory law and the constitution provides technical advice and assistance to O/M/A/s on their law reform initiatives and undertake research on all branches of law.[footnoteRef:29] They make the law accessible conduct public and stakeholder’s consultations on law reform projects, prepare reports on recommendations made by the LRDC on reform of the law to the Minister of Justice Submit LRDC activity reports to the National Assembly through the Minister of justice.[footnoteRef:30] [26: Development commission. Available at http://www.moj.gov.na/law-reform] [27: (ibid.).] [28: (ibid.).] [29: (ibid.)] [30: (ibid.).]

Stages of law reform

LRDC initiates the project or the project is referred to the LRDC and it is approved by the Minister of Justice. [footnoteRef:31] The project is then drafted, and then the issue paper is becomes developed[footnoteRef:32] Furthermore, There will be Consultation on the issue paper, and then the working paper will be developed.[footnoteRef:33] There will be Consultation on the working paper and then there will be a proposed Draft Bill, if a draft post will be proposed.[footnoteRef:34] Lastly, there will be drafting of the Final Report with the proposed Draft bill if they will be any Draft bill.[footnoteRef:35] The final report will then be submitted with the attended of the final Draft bill to the Minister of Justice.[footnoteRef:36]The law reform Commission will then wait for a response from the government. [31: 2017. Law Reform and Development Commission. P 11.] [32: (ibid.).] [33: (ibid.).] [34: (ibid.).] [35: (ibid.).] [36: (ibid.).]

Policies that were proposed by the Law Reform And Development Commission

Divorce law reform

The divorce laws in Namibia were strict in terms of getting a divorce ,couples had to find faults in each other to be granted a divorce, there was also cases of when there was a community of property signed between the divorcing couples the one party would be left with nothing because of this agreement signed, the other law concern in divorce was the custody of the children, primary custody was given to the mothers, the Law reform and development commission than adopted a policy that both divorcing couples can agree on the divorce without stating their reason of the failed marriage[footnoteRef:37] In terms of separation of properties and custody of children the court shall decide based on circumstances to fit everyone, the LRDC also proposed the information of divorce cases not be published in newspapers as this is private information.[footnoteRef:38] [37: 2005. Hubbard D. Divorce law reform: A Summary Of The Law Reform And Development Commission Proposals,P4] [38: 2005. Hubbard D. Divorce law reform: A Summary Of The Law Reform And Development Commission Proposals,P14]

Welfare is a touchy subject to dwell on that has been the topic of debate, especially in recent times with what has been happening in the United States. As time goes on, the need for welfare reform exponentially rises, and some think there is too much being done, while others believe it is too little. Welfare is in every person’s mind, whether it is Medicare or AFDC, it is continuously being taken advantage of, and it needs to be revised. The welfare system needs to be reformed due to the fact that it is incredibly easy to manipulate, welfare programs in the U.S. typically fall short of their goals, and welfare programs are redundant.

One reason the welfare system should be reformed is that it has many exploits and allows people to maneuver around it and shape it to their needs. This is an obvious glitch in the matrix and should be fixed as the need to have a solid foundation should be considered before anything else. Welfare policies are always being taken advantage of and it often leads to people manipulating the policy. The article states: “A universal basic income (UBI) would be prohibitively expensive and would encourage many Americans to leave the workforce. Handing people money for nothing undermines the country’s spirit of industriousness” (Keville, June 2019). This demonstrates how the UBI welfare policy would ineffectively cause a sudden drop in employees. Workers would quit their jobs but still get paid for doing absolutely nothing. Many Americans would take advantage of this policy, leaving companies and establishments short-staffed. This policy is reinforcing the idea of automation and the prediction that robots are going to steal all of our jobs. The fact that robots are on the rise seems to be the main reason a universal basic income is soon to be needed. Individuals would be jobless and unfit to make a decent living, however, an all-inclusive essential salary would help poor people and the jobless. The article also states: “Our economies need construction workers, welders, plumbers, electricians, nurses, firemen, policemen, janitors, waiters…. In oil and gas, mining, shipping and a host of other sectors sizable cohorts of experienced workers are about to retire with no pipeline of younger workers to take their place. This is hardly the time to send young people the message that they should follow their (as yet unidentified) passion and not worry about job prospects” (Keville, June 2019). This shows how welfare policies similar to this encourage people to follow their dreams instead of working to thrive. People are being manipulated themselves, thinking that they will be jobless anyway, so why not get free money for nothing?

Many other Welfare programs also promote laziness. Government programs like nourishment stamps, standardized savings, Medicaid, and Medicare all deter individuals from working harder. The article ‘Government Programs and Funding: Are Government Programs Like Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Beneficial to the United States?’ (2013) states: “Many government programs, including Medicaid and food stamps, breed complacency and laziness among recipients by discouraging them from working harder”. This promotes the idea that all of these programs are helping the mentality of indolence. If a normal person receives all of these benefits. he will be spoiled and taught that everything just comes to him. This mentality drives him to be dependent on the programs and willing to manipulate them to his needs. The article also states: “Unemployment insurance has also been criticized for encouraging complacency and laziness among out-of-work Americans. Opponents argue that excessive benefits create a disincentive for people to seek jobs in earnest”. This indicates how Americans will take anything given to them and expect to be given more. If something is given for free, everyone will get it and would want even more similar deals. No one wants to work hard, they would rather take the easy way out and get rewarded for doing nothing.

Even the farming industry is being subsidized by the government and farmers who are already making money are the only ones being benefitted. Cultivation is one of the few most significant industries to America’s prosperity. According to the article ‘Farm Subsidies: Should the U.S. Government Continue to Subsidize the Farming Industry?’ (2008), “Critics of the current farm subsidies system challenge the idea that it is meant to benefit struggling, small-scale farmers. In reality, they say, while some of those farmers do receive support, the main beneficiaries of farm subsidies are large farming interests. Around two-thirds of U.S. farmers do not receive any subsidies, they note”. Farmers who are making an acquisition do not need subsidies, evolving farmers could use the help, especially in the modern age. Ranchers in creating nations are being harmed by the costs, which bring about those nations disinclined to decay business limits. The feature states: “That is due to a variety of reasons, they say; for one thing, farmers who raise certain crops or farm part-time are not eligible. Farm subsidies have strayed from what they were originally intended to be—a form of relief for needy farmers—and have become a form of ‘corporate welfare’, they charge”. Farm subsidies have been exploited and influenced by many farmers over the lifespan of the program. Farmers who require it do not get much of the benefits, but the farmers who do not need it get all of the benefits. This specific topic of debate has wandered far from the original path, which culminated in an almost completely divergent institution. The story also states: “In fact, critics say, the large farms that receive subsidies generally do not need them to survive. Those farms tend to be financially secure enough to be able to operate without government help, they maintain. There is no reason that taxpayers should be subsidizing wealthy farmers, they assert”. This further shows the present condition of manipulability in the government assistance framework is in. Cultivation assumes a foremost job right now, it is simply being overwhelmed to suit individual needs.

Additionally, another reason the Welfare system should be reformed is that programs usually fall flat and fizzle from the main objective. Welfare programs typically run inadequately, and the system itself has a few holes and gaps. An important institution hub such as welfare should not have structural defects and dereliction. A strong foundation is of the utmost importance when overseeing any operation, and everything else will fall apart without one. The document states: “As an example, take the Earned Income Tax Credit: the program currently pays 21-26 percent of its payments ‘in error’, according to the Internal Revenue Service’s own estimates located under the ‘fraud’ tab of its website. Much of these improper payments are attributable to the program’s complex design, and administrative changes that simplify the filing process may reduce billions of dollars paid out by mistake” (Calder, January 2018). This uncovers how significant projects like the Earned Income Tax Credit despite everything neglect to procure a protected balance. One way or another, a huge budgetary activity figures out how to pay 21-26 percent of its installments by mistake.

There are numerous supplementary applications that all have the same issue. It seems the people who created these programs did not think ahead at all. Specific programs try to provide benefits that they believe help, but in order to get to their goal, they have to make sharp turns. In addition to not being able to drive to their goal in a straight line, they also have to drive on a rocky road. There are plenty of bumps and potholes in their plan of action, which leads to the driver having a terrible and unfair experience. The content states: “Similarly, consider the benefits provided by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): one-third of federal and state TANF spending and 50 percent of state TANF spending were in ‘other areas’, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. ‘Other areas’ include non-welfare state services. But individual states should be required to fund those activities themselves, rather than require the nation at-large to subsidize state activities” (Calder, January 2018). This displays a bewildering understanding of how certain projects are organized. Different territories that incorporate non-government assistance state administrations gave a large portion of the rate to the advantages of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

These problems often do not get discussed enough and get overlooked by high-ranking members who have other priorities. What is the point of even publishing a program without making sure it is fully functioning? Going in blind or submitting an essay without peer-reviewing it first has proven to be a grave mistake that even adults make at times. The paragraph states: “This is short-sighted. A variety of welfare programs suffer major losses due to structural flaws and mismanagement regularly. And despite what advocates of welfare programs say, these problems are well-documented by objective sources, not some figment of a powerful imagination or extreme ideology” (Calder, January 2018). The passage also states: “But for some reason, these issues often don’t concern the right people. Political interest groups often ignore welfare’s existing problems largely to preserve coalitions and signal their ardent commitment to redistributive policy” (Calder, January 2018). Both of these examples exemplify how even welfare programs, as important to society as they are, can still be neglected by the people who are also affected by them. Choosing to disregard an institution of significant importance to your own country is nothing short of a lack of intelligence.

Moreover, another reason the welfare system should be reformed is that welfare programs are redundant. Current government programs frequently correspond to other programs and are even sometimes equivalent to them. The only reason there are so many welfare programs is that there are multiple of the same rules just with a different name. In the article, it states: “Not only are current federal programs poorly overseen or mismanaged, but they are also often duplicative. Consider the 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 50 homeless assistance programs; and 40 separate employment and training programs, just to name a few federal examples. To contend that running this many unique programs with unique rules is anything but wasteful requires willful delusion” (Calder, January 2018). This displays an obvious problem with the current overlapping system in place. Welfare programs are becoming more crucial as time goes on, and instead of creating more effective programs, the government makes the same ones. The definitive dilemma is the measure of how many times they achieved this.

Understandably, certain programs might have forgotten a specific imperative decree, which would result in the government devising another program to fill the gaps. What is not understandable is the number of policies that were constructed for that purpose. The piece states: “Many of these programs have nearly exact overlapping missions. Consider the five federal programs with the purpose of providing school meals: the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Special Milk. Lobbyists need each to exist to protect their own benefit streams. And as researchers point out, legislators have reason to like these inefficiencies because more individual programs mean more legislation to take credit for” (Calder, January 2018). This presents how duplication conflict is a huge compilation. Having five of the same federal programs is nothing short of inefficient, and it just goes to show how careless the government can be. The ability to consistently create xerox federal documents multiple times only embarrasses the government further by implying that they do not double-check their work.

All things considered, government assistance is a tricky liability to harp on that has been the subject of discussion, particularly as of late with what has been occurring in the United States. Over the long haul, the requirement for government assistance change exponentially rises, and some think there is a lot being done, while others trust it is close to nothing. Government assistance is in each individual’s brain, whether it is Medicare or AFDC, it is constantly being exploited, and it should be reexamined. The government assistance framework should be improved because of the way it is extraordinarily simple to control, government assistance programs in the U.S. normally miss the mark concerning their objectives, and government assistance programs are in excess.