The Magistrate of Windhoek cited as the first respondent by former Bernhard Esau in his urgent court application said that he wonders why the matter is being treated as urgent after the former fisheries minister and his co-accused abandoned their bid for bail on 2 Dec.
Known as the Fishrot 6, Esau, former justice minister Sacky Shanghala, former Investec managing director James Hatuikulipi, Tamson Hatuikulipi, Ricardo Gustavo and Pius Mwatelulo are accused of taking bribes amounting to N$150m from an Icelandic fishing company in exchange for quotas.
Esau has approached the High Court of Namibia on an urgent basis seeking an order to have the warrants of arrest issued against him, withdrawn and declared null and void.
He also wants the High Court to order their release. The case will be heard Thursday at 08h30.
The former fisheries minister is facing five counts – using his office for gratification, obtaining gratification as a reward, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.
The other four – Shanghala, James, Tamson and Gustavo – are facing five charges. These are conspiring with another to commit an offence, obtaining gratification as a reward, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. Mwatelulo has one count that of money laundering.
In his affidavit, Esau cited the Magistrate of Windhoek, Venatius Sebby Alweendo, the Anti-Corruption Commission director-general Paulus Noa, the investigating officer Andreas Kanyangela, the Prosecutor General, the Police Inspector General, and Seeis Station commander.
Esau stated that he and his co-accused had issues with the way the warrants of arrest were issued and the date – 20 Feb. 2020 – when they are supposed to reappear in court
In his answering affidavit deposed with the High Court of Namibia dated 17 Dec. Venatio Sebby Alweendo said that when Esau and his co-accused had caused the postponement of the case purportedly for bail application.
Alweendo said the case could not continue of 2 Dec. because the accused abandoned their bail application and said that they were not obliged to reveal the reasons for doing so.
According to Alweendo, the date of which Esau was complaining about had been agreed on by the State and the defence team.
“In those circumstances, one wonders as to why those proceedings are said to be urgent,” Alweendo said.
WARRANTS OF ARREST
On the process followed in issuing the warrants of arrest, Alweendo said that Esau and his co-accused were identified as the person implicated in the commission of the crime.
The magistrate said that he was satisfied that the applications for the warrants of arrest clearly stated the crimes committed and that the crimes were either committed within his jurisdiction as well as that the suspects were within his jurisdiction.
Alweendo also said that he was convinced that there was reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed the alleged crimes and that the way the offences were committed as well tabulated.
Esau also raised an issue with the non-disclosure of the person who applied for the warrants of arrest but Alweendo said a magistrate will look at the application and the supporting affidavit and that if satisfied, he or she can issue the warrants.
“Save for those grounds, there is nothing else that is required to be mentioned for a magistrate to grant the said application for warrants of arrest,” Alweendo wrote.
