Bid to delay Fishrot trial pending dispute hearing
Publish date: 18 November 2024
Issue Number: 1103
Diary: IBA Legalbrief Africa
Category: Namibia
The prosecution wants court proceedings in the Fishrot fraud, corruption and racketeering trial to be kept on hold until a separate case about the appointment of the trial judge has been decided. Deputy Prosecutor-General Ed Marondedze told the High Court at Windhoek Correctional Facility that, in the state’s view, it would be better not to continue with further court proceedings in the trial until an application about the constitutionality of Acting Judge Moses Chinhengo’s appointment as an acting judge has been decided, The Namibian reports. Marondedze said it would be prudent to wait for the outcome of the case in which Chinhengo’s appointment was being questioned, because if that application was successful, trial proceedings that have taken place before Chinhengo would become a nullity. Three of the 10 men charged in the Fishrot case – former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Sacky Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi and Pius Mwatelulo – have filed an application in the Windhoek High Court to set aside President Hage Geingob’s decision in April last year to appoint Chinhengo as an acting judge, claiming that, according to the Constitution, the President may not appoint a person who is older than 65 years as an acting judge, and that Chinhengo was 67-years-old at the time of his appointment.
The accused in the case were back in court before Chinhengo for the hearing of an application for a separation of trials, which is based on the fact that they – and another accused, Ricardo Gustavo – do not have legal representation at this stage. The Namibian notes that the three have also filed an application for their trial should not take place in the High Court at Windhoek Correctional Facility, which they say does not have adequate facilities – such as tables, electricity points for laptop computers, wi-fi access and chairs with backrests – for them to properly conduct their defence. They are alleging this is violating their constitutional right to a fair trial.
