Of late, Namibians have witnessed an increase in the number of requests for judges to recuse themselves from certain cases. But what exactly is recusal, and why are these applications gaining traction? 

Legal experts warn that while recusal is a vital tool for maintaining fair trials, the surge in such applications could raise concerns. It is for this reason that a need arises for the issue to be critically tested as to whether it is becoming a strategy to delay proceedings or if it is truly about ensuring a fair trial.

Recusal is a legal term used when a judge is asked to remove him- or herself from a case due to a perceived conflict of interest or bias. 

The test for recusal in Namibia is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a judge might not be impartial. 

In State v. Stewe, the Supreme Court held that judges may recuse themselves on their own (mero motu), but only with valid and reasonable grounds—not personal feelings or fears. 

Just as recently, controversy surrounding activist Michael Amushelelo's contempt of court trial in which he is being sued N$1 million for defamation by NamPol Inspector General Joseph Shikongo saw him launch a recusal application, only to end up being arrested for slurs against the judiciary.

Similar previous court rulings tell us that courts will rarely grant recusal unless there's strong, convincing evidence of bias and not as a way to disrupt the court process.

For example, not long ago, the court declined a recusal application in the high-profile Fishrot scandal, where several accused have demanded a new judge.

Judge Ueitele refused to recuse himself from academic professor and social justice activist Job Amupanda's Red Line protests case, despite the activist's objections.

The court held that dissatisfaction with judicial proceedings does not prove bias.

In a very rare case, though, in State v Auanga Olavi, the magistrate's recusal was confirmed based on appropriate grounds to preserve fairness; however, in State v Fan Jia and 13 Others, the High Court set aside a magistrate's recusal. 

In this case, the court ruled there were no valid grounds for withdrawal, and the matter was sent back to the same magistrate.

In State v Marcus Kevin Thomas in 2013, a recusal application was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal attempt also failed, as allegations were based on dissatisfaction with procedural rulings, not bias.

Legal analyst Fedden Mukwata says what is being considered an increase in recusal applications only means people are exercising their procedural rights, but it is not new to the court roll. It is only that now court proceedings are widely covered by the media, exposing many people to the workings of courts. 

Mukwata, however, says while recusal is meant to maintain checks and balances, there could be more at stake than just courtroom tactics. 

He says while courts and judges enjoy independence, if too many judges are recused, it could also be perceived as the court bending to external pressure, or if it's seen as a tactic to delay trials, the public may begin to question the integrity of the judicial system itself.

Recusal applications must therefore be handled with care and be used sparingly.