By Rinelda Mouton
The ministry of justice and labour relations has left allegations of possible gender bias in maintenance courts unanswered, after a father questioned whether the predominantly female officials handling his case could compromise the fairness of proceedings.
In its response to Confidente, the ministry outlined the legal obligations of both parents under the Maintenance Act, but did not directly address concerns about the gender composition of magistrates and prosecutors overseeing maintenance disputes.
The unanswered issue was raised by a father whose experience at the Katutura Maintenance Court, reported by Confidente last week, left him questioning whether men receive impartial treatment in child maintenance cases.
He claimed the magistrate, prosecutor and most staff members handling his matter were women, with only two men among the court’s nine staff members. He questioned whether this composition could influence how fathers are treated.
The father also alleged, based on his own inquiries, that the magistrate and prosecutor were single mothers. He provided no independent evidence that their personal circumstances affected his case.
The ministry’s response, dated 29 October 2026, did not address these allegations or clarify whether safeguards are in place to guard against prejudice in maintenance proceedings.
Instead, Chief Public Relations Officer Edmund //Khoaseb said the Maintenance Act 9 of 2003 is gender neutral and obliges both parents to support their children.
“The Maintenance Act, 2003 (Act No. 9 of 2003), does not discriminate between mothers and fathers. Both parents have a legal duty to maintain their children,” //Khoaseb said.
The ministry explained that courts assess maintenance according to children’s reasonable needs and each parent’s financial circumstances, including income, resources and other obligations.
It also said employed mothers must contribute towards their children’s upbringing according to their means, just as fathers are required to do, whether the child lives with the mother or father.
“The law does not place the financial responsibility for raising a child exclusively on the father. Both parents are legally responsible, and their respective contributions must be determined according to their means and the needs of the child,” //Khoaseb said.
Fathers, //Khoaseb added, may present evidence of their financial position, explain existing obligations and challenge the amount sought.
They may also apply to vary an order if their circumstances materially change.
The response, however, did not say whether the gender composition of maintenance courts is reviewed or how complaints alleging gender-based prejudice by court officials are handled.
The father’s broader concern was whether both parents’ circumstances are examined with equal scrutiny when obligations are set.
He questioned whether the mother’s financial position in his dispute had received the same attention as his own, saying proceedings should centre on the child’s needs and both parents’ responsibilities.
//Khoaseb maintained that maintenance proceedings should not become a contest between parents, saying the law’s purpose is to secure support for children.
“Maintenance is not a mother’s right or a father’s punishment. It is a child’s right and a shared parental responsibility,” //Khoaseb said.
He said contributions need not be limited to monthly cash payments: depending on the order, they may cover school fees, medical expenses, clothing and other essentials.
He cautioned parents to continue complying with an existing order unless a court changes or discharges it, even if they suspect payments are being misused.
//Khoaseb also said maintenance and contact or visitation disputes are separate; disagreement over access does not automatically remove a parent’s duty to support the child.
Human rights activist Rosa Namises, Capstone Research Consultancy founding manager Ben Uugwanga and lecturer and political analyst Ndumba Kamwanyah also commented on the concerns in last week’s report.
Their responses broadly called for professional conduct, consideration of both parents’ means and prioritisation of children’s welfare.
Namises urged officials to follow the law, Uugwanga rejected the claim that female magistrates and prosecutors automatically favour mothers, while Kamwanyah said contributions should reflect parents’ financial circumstances rather than gender.
