Namibian Police Preservation of Internal Security: Lesson from other Countries Constitutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutions are considered essential pieces of legislation; without them, insecurity would likely be more widespread globally. They define roles, set permissible boundaries, and establish when obligations should be fulfilled, thus providing a framework for stability and security. The study compared the Namibian Police Force’s obligation to preserve internal security with Brazil, the Philippines, Scotland, Kenya, Tunisia, Ghana, South Africa, Zambia and Mozambique by analysing the constitutional mandates of the police officers. The study analysis showed that there are critical similarities and differences in the constitutional police mandate of the countries studied. The study adopted a desktop literature review approach to gather and analyse existing literature on the Constitution provisions. The analysis indicates that in Ghana, South Africa and Namibia, the Constitutions do not give provisions for other stakeholders to be involved in preserving internal security but the police alone. In Brazil, Philippines, Scotland, Kenya, Zambia and Mozambique’s Constitutions mandate either the armed forces or civilian components to aid the national police in preserving internal security. Although Namibia’s Constitution does not formally permit stakeholder involvement in internal security preservation, the military remains consistently engaged in this role due to internal security challenges that cannot be addressed by the police alone. Therefore, the study recommends that the Namibian Constitution be amended to legitimise other stakeholders’ involvement in preserving internal security. The study contributes to the knowledge with a special focus on how the Constitution contributes to effective or ineffective police duties in preserving internal security. Keywords: Constitution, Preservation, Internal Security, Obligation, Namibian Police Force
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".