I was recently interviewed by journalist Augetto Craig on The Evening Review about the work of the Namibia Consumer Protection Group and my efforts to help identify beneficiaries of funds being held by the Master of the High Court. During the discussion, a question came up that I suspect many Namibians have never really stopped to consider: Is the Master of the High Court actually part of the judiciary?
For those interested, the interview can be viewed here.
At first glance, the answer seems obvious. The office is called the Master of the High Court. Most people would naturally assume that if an institution carries the name of the High Court, it forms part of the judiciary. Yet when one looks at how Namibia's institutions are organised today, the answer is not quite as straightforward as the title might suggest.
The Master's Office performs functions that affect thousands of Namibians. It administers deceased estates, supervises trusts, deals with insolvencies, liquidations and the Guardian's Fund. Anyone who has had to deal with the estate of a deceased family member will know that the office plays an important role in people's lives. Because its work is closely linked to legal matters, many people simply assume that it belongs to the judiciary.
One of the developments that changed the landscape was the establishment of the Office of the Judiciary. Namibia's courts now have their own administration and support structures separate from government ministries. This reflects the principle that courts should operate independently and that the administration supporting judges should be distinct from the ordinary structures of the Executive.
What makes this interesting is that the Master's Office does not form part of the Office of the Judiciary. Instead, it falls under the Ministry of Justice and Labour Relations. The title may create an impression of judicial status, but administratively the office remains part of a government ministry.
This distinction is not merely a matter of administrative organisation. It is also supported by Namibian law. In the landmark case Kamuhanga v The Master of the High Court, the court described the Master as "an administrative official within the meaning of Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution". By characterising the Master as an administrative official rather than a judicial officer, the court confirmed something that is sometimes overlooked in public discussion. The Master's Office does not exercise judicial power in the way that a court does. Instead, it is a public office whose decisions and conduct must comply with the constitutional principles of fairness, reasonableness and accountability that apply to public administration.
For me, this is not merely an academic discussion about constitutional structures. Over the past few months I have spent a considerable amount of time assisting individuals and families attempting to trace and claim unclaimed monies being held by the Master of the High Court. In many cases, the beneficiaries are ordinary Namibians who did not even know the funds existed. Helping people navigate that process has given me a practical reason to think about the role and status of the Master's Office.
In the course of this work, I have occasionally gained the impression that some officials view the office as deserving the same level of deference that citizens would ordinarily show to the courts. Questions are sometimes treated as challenges and requests for information can feel like asking for a special favour. Yet if the Master's Office is an administrative office rather than a judicial one, then the relationship between citizens and the office should be viewed differently.
The funds being held do not belong to the Master. They do not belong to the officials administering the office. They belong to beneficiaries, heirs and claimants who may have a legal right to receive them. Those seeking information are not appearing before a judge. They are engaging with a public office that exists to serve citizens and administer those funds in accordance with the law. When people enquire about unclaimed monies, they are not seeking charity. They are seeking information and assistance regarding assets that may rightfully belong to them.
That is why I believe the question matters. If citizens assume that the Master's Office occupies the same position as a court, they may hesitate to question delays, challenge administrative decisions or insist on reasonable service. Yet public institutions function best when both officials and citizens understand their respective roles. Respect should always flow both ways.
The title Master of the High Court naturally focuses attention on the office's connection to the courts. That connection is real and important. However, names do not always tell the whole story. When one looks at where the office is located within government, how Namibia has structured the administration of the judiciary, and what role the office actually performs, a more nuanced picture emerges.
Perhaps the real question is not whether the Master works closely with the courts. Few people would dispute that. The more interesting question is whether every institution connected to the courts automatically becomes part of the judiciary. Once that question is asked, the answer seems far less obvious than the title of the office might suggest. More importantly, it reminds us that citizens dealing with the Master's Office are not standing before a court. They are interacting with a public institution that exists to serve the public, administer the law fairly, and account for the way it performs that duty.
